This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: extending wait4(2) or waitid(2) linux syscall
- From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd at arndb dot de>
- To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa at zytor dot com>
- Cc: "Dmitry V. Levin" <ldv at altlinux dot org>, Albert ARIBAUD <albert dot aribaud at 3adev dot fr>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, Linux API <linux-api at vger dot kernel dot org>
- Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 23:14:21 -0800
- Subject: Re: extending wait4(2) or waitid(2) linux syscall
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20181115140441.GA2171@altlinux.org> <CAK8P3a0Gsqa8WTbALOUchRyEA7E2f3P1f=XQ8nD2xQaemfPpcQ@mail.gmail.com> <20181115153008.GC2171@altlinux.org> <68E78315-66C9-4CEE-B6A0-61485AFB314A@zytor.com>
On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 7:38 AM <email@example.com> wrote:
> On November 15, 2018 7:30:11 AM PST, "Dmitry V. Levin" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> >On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 06:39:03AM -0800, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >> On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 6:05 AM Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 03:20:51PM +0200, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
> >2. The time precision provided by struct rusage returned by wait4(2)
> >and waitid(2) is too low for syscall time counting (strace -c) nowadays,
> >this can be observing by running in a row a simple command like "strace -c
> >The fix is to return a more appropriate structure than struct rusage
> >by the new pwait6(2)/pwaitid(2) syscall mentioned above, where
> >struct timeval is replaced with struct timespec or even struct
> Arnd: w.r.t. our previous discussion, this would seem to justify going to timespec(64) for these kind of cases.
Ok, and I assume we want the same layout for getrusage(2) then, right?