From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from h3cspam02-ex.h3c.com (smtp.h3c.com [221.12.31.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6913333FE04; Tue, 20 Jan 2026 08:45:57 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=221.12.31.56 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1768898763; cv=none; b=PtYrMsdzSMwgsrEU8JQi6M3405UKDkNFZBNyfSHN0XnxbjtNI6BkVfGOa9IFinsu9ojCclHRMnhvLdTyp8BuaR0czLweua1BkQjqibgdkZ4/r+BRWx0knqjsMtJNiZXdqLPziN9ghg8E3hL/jSb5DfygV9ku6V993WuZX6lDmMk= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1768898763; c=relaxed/simple; bh=4cqaPbRRCcn6xGvj/IYrBX4g4UX2zALJj13n/6jHJyA=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=a0xoAYqptjSe7LJp6SnA/Brr1F4clKALYkERDvlXjsyCfnnQelLVqVyPKKFAsyOBwlnBaQyWhgwp9Hn4NTs7OkZNz0gD+AaoSYxCqbwoKMLLwa1bCTKw1jj7NJblCa2VwipMSE31/LfZue9QcSvjHhoqSnsJnKRPzAmDBK+M9Jo= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=h3c.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=h3c.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=221.12.31.56 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=h3c.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=h3c.com Received: from h3cspam02-ex.h3c.com (localhost [127.0.0.2] (may be forged)) by h3cspam02-ex.h3c.com with ESMTP id 60K7LVMA002512; Tue, 20 Jan 2026 15:21:31 +0800 (+08) (envelope-from ning.le@h3c.com) Received: from mail.maildlp.com ([172.25.15.154]) by h3cspam02-ex.h3c.com with ESMTP id 60K7LBNb001080; Tue, 20 Jan 2026 15:21:11 +0800 (+08) (envelope-from ning.le@h3c.com) Received: from DAG6EX08-BJD.srv.huawei-3com.com (unknown [10.153.34.10]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A6382011864; Tue, 20 Jan 2026 15:30:37 +0800 (CST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (10.114.186.44) by DAG6EX08-BJD.srv.huawei-3com.com (10.153.34.10) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.2.1258.27; Tue, 20 Jan 2026 15:21:10 +0800 From: ningle To: CC: , , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH] proc/stat: document uptime-based CPU utilization calculation Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2026 15:20:18 +0800 Message-ID: <20260120072018.3139470-1-ning.le@h3c.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.33.0 In-Reply-To: <20251226043409.1063711-1-ning.le@h3c.com> References: <20251226043409.1063711-1-ning.le@h3c.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain X-ClientProxiedBy: BJSMTP02-EX.srv.huawei-3com.com (10.63.20.133) To DAG6EX08-BJD.srv.huawei-3com.com (10.153.34.10) X-DNSRBL: X-SPAM-SOURCE-CHECK: pass X-MAIL:h3cspam02-ex.h3c.com 60K7LVMA002512 Hi, Gentle ping on this documentation patch. The main motivation is to describe how userspace can compute more stable CPU utilization on systems that already enable NOHZ and virtual CPU accounting (CONFIG_VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING_*), where idle time in /proc/stat is already accurate. In this context, improving observability is often easier by providing a better time reference for these existing counters (e.g. a timestamp field in /proc/stat), rather than enabling additional options like CONFIG_CONTEXT_TRACKING_USER_FORCE, which may be too heavy for many production environments. If this direction is acceptable, I can adjust the text or placement as you prefer. Thanks, ning le