* Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On (09/03/13 10:43), Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
> > Ok, I see now, utime is 0 . This seems to be problem with dynamic ticks
> > as you told that your application is kernel compilation, so we utilize
> > lot of cpu time in user-space.
> >
> > Anyway we should handle utime == 0 situation on scaling code. We work
> > well when rtime & stime are not big (variables and results fit in
> > 32 bit), otherwise we have that stime bigger than rtime problem. Let's
> > try to handle the problem by below patch. Sergey, does it work for you ?
>
> checked on -current and -next -- works fine, good job.
>
> here are my:
> Reported-by: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhat...@gmail.com>
> Tested-by: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhat...@gmail.com>
Cool and thanks for the patient reporting and testing!
Stanislaw, mind sending a changelogged, signed off patch with Sergey's
tags included? It also warrants a -stable backport tag I think.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
