Do all the things like ++ or -- rants, post your own rants, comment on others' rants and build your customized dev avatarSign Up
frogstair10795218dHis Papi went to AUR to get some milk 15 years ago....
Still not back
netikras22175218dSO says that CPU_CLOCK version is broken and should not be used. CPU_CLOCK was intended to be used as wall-clock (the amount of time the task was hanging around in the tasks list), and the TASK_CLOCK should show how long has that task been in RUNNING state (i.e. being actually processed).
The example with `sleep 1` is very clear IMO.
TBH I'd name them the other way around. That might be more intuitive: CPU_CL being the CPU time spent on the task and TASK_CL - amount of time the task was lurking in the tasks list.
halfflat1894218d@netikras I've read that SO answer, and I'm sure it's a part-answer, or is a complete-at-some-point-in-time answer. There are mailing list posts that contradict it, or at least, may reflect what the event meant at a different point in time.
I think the only way to be sure is to read the kernel source (for a version one cares about) and work backwards.
rfc716811My laptop started making faint high-pitched noises - I hope I misheard and it's actually just some coil singin...
Override13Why do viedo tutorials always assume that one doesn't know anything about programming? If I am looking up a f...
GrumpyGerman3Today was one of these days.... Searched the whole day for a bug, I had the urge to shove my keyboard into my ...