Re: top/ps incorrectly reporting process execution times

[Karim Yaghmour]

Dimitris Michailidis wrote:
> 
> I am saying the kernel can do exact accounting without the LTT, not without
> doing exact accounting.  LTT is not an alias for exact accounting.
> 

Of course it isn't an alias for exact accounting, I never claimed it was!?!

Taking it that way, ext2 isn't an alias for having a file-system in Linux.
But it's there and it works fine, so what's your point?

If you don't like LTT, no one is forcing it upon you to use it and I
certainly have very little control over it's acceptance in the mainstream
kernel. I can only suggest things and show their usefulness. I think that
the case of LTT's usefulness has been made, the Usenix paper has shown this.
If mainstream users find it useful, then that's their decision. If the kernel
maintainers find this usefulness and mainstream adoption as a reason to include
it in the kernel, then that's their decision too.

I wrote LTT because I liked the idea and thought that it would give me
a better view of Linux's behavior and it has. Now, it seems that a lot of other
people share my belief that this is a good way into knowing precisely how Linux
behaves. I'm not forcing any of these people to adhere to my ideas. They
like LTT because they like the idea. If your intent is to show that you
can do tracing without having LTT, then you will certainly succeed. But
then, by the same argument, any software is replaceable. The ideas behind
the software, though, tend to be fairly similar.

===================================================
                 Karim Yaghmour
               [e-mail]
          Operating System Consultant
 (Linux kernel, real-time and distributed systems)
===================================================