From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail203.messagelabs.com (mail203.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.243]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 653ED6B003D for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 20:21:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from m2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp ([10.0.50.72]) by fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp (Fujitsu Gateway) with ESMTP id n360Lak0022002 for (envelope-from kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com); Mon, 6 Apr 2009 09:21:37 +0900 Received: from smail (m2 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C6D445DE61 for ; Mon, 6 Apr 2009 09:21:36 +0900 (JST) Received: from s2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.92]) by m2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 402F845DD79 for ; Mon, 6 Apr 2009 09:21:36 +0900 (JST) Received: from s2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE4831DB803C for ; Mon, 6 Apr 2009 09:21:35 +0900 (JST) Received: from m105.s.css.fujitsu.com (m105.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.249.87.105]) by s2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CBB41DB803B for ; Mon, 6 Apr 2009 09:21:35 +0900 (JST) From: KOSAKI Motohiro Subject: Re: [PATCH for -mm] getrusage: fill ru_maxrss value In-Reply-To: References: <20090405084902.GA4411@psychotron.englab.brq.redhat.com> Message-Id: <20090406091825.44F0.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 09:21:34 +0900 (JST) Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Hugh Dickins Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, Jiri Pirko , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , oleg@redhat.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, mingo@elte.hu List-ID: Hi > I'm worrying particularly about the fork/exec issue you highlight. > You're exemplary in providing your test programs, but there's a big > omission: you don't mention that the first test, "./getrusage -lc", > gives a very different result on Linux than you say it does on BSD - > you say the BSD fork line is "fork: self 0 children 0", whereas > I find my Linux fork line is "fork: self 102636 children 0". FreeBSD update rusage at tick updating point. (I think all bsd do that) Then, bsd displaing 0 is bsd's problem :) Do I must change test program? > So after that discrepancy, I can't tell what to expect. Not that > I can make any sense of BSD's "self 0" there - I don't know how > you could present 0 there if this is related to hiwater_rss. > > Now I'm seriously wondering if the ru_maxrss reported will generate > more bugreports from people puzzled as to how it should behave, > than help anyone in studying their process behaviour. > > Sorry to be so negative after all this time: I genuinely hope others > will spring up to defend your patch and illustrate my stupidity. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org