From: Frans Pop <elendil@planet.nl>
To: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
Cc: "Chuck Ebbert" <cebbert@redhat.com>,
"Luca Tettamanti" <kronos.it@gmail.com>,
"Willy Tarreau" <w@1wt.eu>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"Ilpo Järvinen" <ilpo.jarvinen@helsinki.fi>,
"Alexander E. Patrakov" <patrakov@ums.usu.ru>,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@elte.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH for testing] Re: Decreasing stime running confuses top
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 17:49:32 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200710051749.33381.elendil@planet.nl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200710042310.25223.borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
On Thursday 04 October 2007, you wrote:
> Frans can you test this patch if this makes stime and utime monotic
> again?
>
> It basically reverts the rest of
> b27f03d4bdc145a09fb7b0c0e004b29f1ee555fa and should restore the 2.6.22
> behavior. The process time is used from tasks utime and stime instead of
> the scheduler clock. That means, in general after a long period of time,
> it is less accurate than the current time and behaves like 2.6.22.
>
> Signed-off-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
Yes, this gives steady increases.
For kontact it also again shows updates only once every minute. I really
wonder where all the other fluctuations for contact come from with the
alternative code.
It seems to me that this patch would be the best option for 2.6.23.
Tested-by: Frans Pop <elendil@planet.nl>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-10-05 15:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-10-03 12:33 top displaying 9999% CPU usage Frans Pop
2007-10-03 12:52 ` Jan Engelhardt
2007-10-03 13:03 ` Alexander E. Patrakov
2007-10-03 14:04 ` Frans Pop
2007-10-03 14:43 ` Ilpo Järvinen
2007-10-03 14:51 ` Ilpo Järvinen
2007-10-03 19:27 ` Decreasing stime running confuses top (was: top displaying 9999% CPU usage) Frans Pop
2007-10-03 20:24 ` Willy Tarreau
2007-10-03 23:32 ` Frans Pop
2007-10-04 19:19 ` Luca Tettamanti
2007-10-04 19:32 ` Decreasing stime running confuses top Chuck Ebbert
2007-10-04 20:00 ` Christian Borntraeger
2007-10-04 20:21 ` Chuck Ebbert
2007-10-04 21:10 ` [PATCH for testing] " Christian Borntraeger
2007-10-04 22:01 ` Chuck Ebbert
2007-10-04 22:31 ` Christian Borntraeger
2007-10-05 11:43 ` Luca
2007-10-05 15:07 ` Frans Pop
2007-10-05 15:49 ` Frans Pop [this message]
2007-10-08 16:49 ` Christian Borntraeger
2007-10-08 17:00 ` Ingo Molnar
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200710051749.33381.elendil@planet.nl \
--to=elendil@planet.nl \
--cc=borntraeger@de.ibm.com \
--cc=cebbert@redhat.com \
--cc=ilpo.jarvinen@helsinki.fi \
--cc=kronos.it@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=patrakov@ums.usu.ru \
--cc=w@1wt.eu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.