From: Matthew Reppert <repp0017@tc.umn.edu>
To: Ludootje <ludootje@linux.be>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Uptime counter
Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2004 15:20:18 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1075670417.14322.9.camel@minerva> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1075673274.4047.8.camel@gax.mynet>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1109 bytes --]
On Sun, 2004-02-01 at 16:07, Ludootje wrote:
> On Sun, 2004-02-01 at 20:51, Matti Aarnio wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 01, 2004 at 10:41:41PM +0200, Markus Hästbacka wrote:
> > > Hi list,
> > > I wonder does any kernel branch have a uptime counter that doesn't stop
> > > counting at 497 days? Or is a patch needed for the job to
> > > 2.{0,2,4,6} kernel?
> >
> > Any 64 bit machine since day 1, but also 2.6 at i386 does work.
> >
> > > Markus
> >
> > /Matti Aarnio
>
> It's the first time I hear about the uptime being resetted after 497 days,
> why is this? Is this a mistake or are their reasons for it?
On 32-bit architectures, the uptime counter is only 32 bits wide. Each
"tick" of the counter is worth 1/HZ seconds (IIRC). So, you can get the
number of seconds this will hold with simple math (2^32 * 1/HZ, HZ
being 100 on i386). This is about 497.1 days.
Of course, on 64-bit architectures, the counter will hold 4 billion
times that, which is about as long as the Earth has existed. Apparently
2.6 has come up with a way to deal with this on 32-bit architectures.
Matt
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-02-01 21:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-02-01 20:41 Uptime counter Markus Hästbacka
2004-02-01 20:51 ` Matti Aarnio
2004-02-01 22:07 ` Ludootje
2004-02-01 21:20 ` Matthew Reppert [this message]
2004-02-01 20:52 ` Måns Rullgård
2004-02-01 21:02 ` Christian Borntraeger
2004-02-01 21:16 ` Markus Hästbacka
2004-02-01 21:27 ` David Weinehall
2004-02-01 21:34 ` Markus Hästbacka
2004-02-01 21:44 ` David Weinehall
2004-02-01 22:07 ` Markus Hästbacka
2004-02-01 22:19 ` David Weinehall
2004-02-01 22:42 ` Markus Hästbacka
2004-02-01 21:56 ` Guillermo Menguez Alvarez
2004-02-01 22:36 ` Paul Jakma
2004-02-01 22:59 ` Markus Hästbacka
2004-02-01 23:04 ` David Weinehall
2004-02-02 7:20 ` Markus Hästbacka
2004-02-02 7:24 ` David Weinehall
2004-02-02 8:59 ` Markus Hästbacka
2004-02-01 23:47 ` Wakko Warner
2004-02-01 21:33 ` Tomasz Torcz
2004-02-01 22:10 ` Ludootje
2004-02-02 17:54 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2004-02-02 18:37 ` Mike Fedyk
2004-02-04 16:24 ` Bill Davidsen
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=1075670417.14322.9.camel@minerva \
--to=repp0017@tc.umn.edu \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ludootje@linux.be \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox