On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 10:49:23AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Frederic Weisbecker <fweis...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > But I am still not happy about the approach. What is the compelling > > > reason for > > > this change except for the "but it looks ugly"? > > > > The diffstat (600 lines removed). Also the fact that we have all these > > workarounds in the core code just for the special case of 1 arch (s390) and > > a > > half (powerpc with CONFIG_VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING_NATIVE). > > > > I'd much rather have all that complexity moved in a vtime_native.c shared > > by > > s390 and powerpc that takes care of proper accumulation in cputime_t and > > flushes > > that on ticks in nsecs rather than having all these cputime_t game all over > > the > > kernel. > > I agree - we really want to concentrate complexity in such a fashion and > generally > standardize on nanosecs, and the diffstat of the patchset is really nice.
Yeah, although the diffstat might become less impressive after the accumulator code, but still worth it I think. > The patchset obviously has to build (and work!) on s390/powerpc properly. Of course! Thanks.
