Escalated to Bugzilla from IssueTracker
It used to be that getrusage(RUSAGE_SELF...) returned the information from just that kernel task and not all the child tasks which were often threads. Thus if you had a process where the parent slept while all the work was done in the threads getrusage(RUSAGE_SELF...) would be very wrong. This was fixed and now getrusage(RUSAGE_SELF...) returns the correct value for the process. However, we would also like the ability to inquire about a thread's usage. This was added upstream by a RH engineer. Can we backport it into RHEL5. http://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/linux-kernel/2008/1/19/582809 This event sent from IssueTracker by jwest [SEG - Feature Request] issue 185356
Who is the customer? LLNL What is the exact nature of the problem trying to be solved with this request? Backport RUSAGE_THREAD support from upstream into a future RHEL5 kernel update. What, if any, business requirements are satisfied by this request? (What is the use case context?) LLNL works with complex code every day, and tools such as getrusage are helpful in diagnosing problems and gathering statistics resource usage. List the functional requirement(s) for performing the action(s) that are not presently possible. Please focus on describing the problem related requirements without projecting any specific solution. It used to be that getrusage(RUSAGE_SELF...) returned the information from just that kernel task and not all the child tasks which were often threads. Thus if you had a process where the parent slept while all the work was done in the threads getrusage(RUSAGE_SELF...) would be very wrong. This was fixed and now getrusage(RUSAGE_SELF...) returns the correct value for the process. However, we would also like the ability to inquire about a thread's usage. Each functional requirement must have clear acceptance criteria so Red Hat understands what success looks like. If test cases can be provided this would be even more ideal (bonus points for RHTS test cases). With this patch in place, calls to getrusage() will now return correct information about a process. What is the desired release vehicle to satisfy these requirements? Minor release...RHEL5.3 or 5.4 would be desirable What package(s) are affected by this RFE? (List "new" if new technology is likely to be required) kernel package Who is the sales sponsor? Nathan Jones What is the Red Hat business opportunity with this customer? Having this sort of functionality won't just benefit LLNL. It will come in handy for all of the DoE, as well as any customers that write and diagnose their own complex codes. What is the status and risk to the contract if this RFE is not satisfied? We could lose out to a competitor that would be more willing to implement this functionality in their distribution. Issue escalated to SEG - Feature Request by: kbaxley. kbaxley assigned to issue for LLNL (HPC). Category set to: Kernel Internal Status set to 'Waiting on SEG' Status set to: Waiting on Tech This event sent from IssueTracker by jwest [SEG - Feature Request] issue 185356
Patch posted: http://post-office.corp.redhat.com/archives/rhkernel-list/2009-February/msg00084.html
Updating PM score.
in kernel-2.6.18-132.el5 You can download this test kernel from http://people.redhat.com/dzickus/el5 Please do NOT transition this bugzilla state to VERIFIED until our QE team has sent specific instructions indicating when to do so. However feel free to provide a comment indicating that this fix has been verified.
~~ Attention - RHEL 5.4 Beta Released! ~~ RHEL 5.4 Beta has been released! There should be a fix present in the Beta release that addresses this particular request. Please test and report back results here, at your earliest convenience. RHEL 5.4 General Availability release is just around the corner! If you encounter any issues while testing Beta, please describe the issues you have encountered and set the bug into NEED_INFO. If you encounter new issues, please clone this bug to open a new issue and request it be reviewed for inclusion in RHEL 5.4 or a later update, if it is not of urgent severity. Please do not flip the bug status to VERIFIED. Only post your verification results, and if available, update Verified field with the appropriate value. Questions can be posted to this bug or your customer or partner representative.
An advisory has been issued which should help the problem described in this bug report. This report is therefore being closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For more information on therefore solution and/or where to find the updated files, please follow the link below. You may reopen this bug report if the solution does not work for you. http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2009-1243.html