From: Kent Borg <kentborg@borg.org>
To: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Why HZ on i386 is 100 ?
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 08:44:04 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20020417084404.A9382@borg.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20020416222156.GB20464@turbolinux.com> <E16xba3-0005tw-00@gondolin.me.apana.org.au>
On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 08:37:43AM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Why are we still measuring uptime using the tick variable? Ticks != time.
> Surely we should be recording the boot time somewhere (probably on a
> file system), and then comparing that with the current time?
It depends on the meaning of "is", er, opps, I mean: it depends on the
meaning of "uptime".
The notebook I am typing on at this moment was last booted just about
exactly 8 days ago (judging from the timestamp on /var/log/dmesg) but
in a cat-like way it spends a lot of its time asleep and so top
reports an uptime of only "4 days, 2:42".
Which is correct? I suggest that the smaller number is closer to
correct because that is roughly the amount of time the system has
actually spent running.
-kb, the Kent who expects this question to get more complicated as the
new suspend gets more and more clever and if the kernel ever starts
seriously catnapping on its own.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-04-17 12:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 75+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-04-16 7:47 Why HZ on i386 is 100 ? Olaf Fraczyk
2002-04-16 8:14 ` William Lee Irwin III
2002-04-16 8:18 ` BALBIR SINGH
2002-04-16 10:29 ` Liam Girdwood
2002-04-16 10:01 ` Olaf Fraczyk
2002-04-16 13:35 ` Terje Eggestad
2002-04-16 13:38 ` Mark Mielke
2002-04-16 13:55 ` Terje Eggestad
2002-04-16 15:32 ` Rik van Riel
2002-04-16 16:12 ` Chris Friesen
2002-04-16 17:12 ` Mark Mielke
2002-04-16 13:58 ` Alan Cox
2002-04-17 0:22 ` H. Peter Anvin
2002-04-16 16:27 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-04-16 16:50 ` David Mosberger
2002-04-16 17:18 ` Davide Libenzi
2002-04-16 17:52 ` David Mosberger
2002-04-16 18:10 ` Davide Libenzi
2002-04-17 0:49 ` David Mosberger
2002-04-17 0:57 ` Robert Love
2002-04-17 1:07 ` Davide Libenzi
2002-04-17 5:18 ` Mark Mielke
2002-04-17 5:34 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-04-17 6:01 ` Robert Love
2002-04-17 6:17 ` David Mosberger
2002-04-17 7:59 ` arjan
2002-04-17 8:04 ` Matti Aarnio
2002-04-23 22:42 ` Albert D. Cahalan
2002-04-17 10:12 ` Martin Dalecki
2002-04-18 1:51 ` Dan Mann
2002-04-17 1:22 ` Davide Libenzi
2002-04-17 3:19 ` Ben Greear
2002-04-17 7:55 ` Helge Hafting
2002-04-21 18:00 ` Pavel Machek
2002-04-22 17:20 ` John Alvord
2002-04-22 21:52 ` george anzinger
2002-04-22 23:06 ` J.D. Bakker
2002-04-22 23:26 ` Anton Blanchard
2002-04-23 19:03 ` george anzinger
2002-04-23 7:08 ` Alan Cox
2002-04-22 17:24 ` David Mosberger
2002-04-16 12:42 ` Richard B. Johnson
2002-04-16 12:31 ` Richard B. Johnson
2002-04-16 14:04 ` Bill Davidsen
2002-04-16 21:34 ` bert hubert
2002-04-16 22:21 ` Andreas Dilger
2002-04-16 22:37 ` Herbert Xu
2002-04-16 22:56 ` Andreas Dilger
2002-04-17 0:34 ` J. Dow
2002-04-17 2:40 ` Herbert Xu
2002-04-17 12:44 ` Kent Borg [this message]
2002-04-17 8:28 ` please merge 64-bit jiffy patches. Was " bert hubert
2002-04-17 11:05 ` please merge 64-bit jiffy patches Tim Schmielau
2002-04-17 11:12 ` bert hubert
2002-04-17 12:33 ` Bill Davidsen
2002-04-17 12:42 ` bert hubert
2002-04-17 14:57 ` Bill Davidsen
2002-04-17 11:09 ` please merge 64-bit jiffy patches. Was Re: Why HZ on i386 is 100 ? Wakko Warner
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-04-16 10:41 Cabaniols, Sebastien
2002-04-17 0:33 Chen, Kenneth W
2002-04-17 1:02 ` Davide Libenzi
[not found] <3CC4861C.F21859A6@mvista.com.suse.lists.linux.kernel>
[not found] ` <E16zuPf-0007yD-00@the-village.bc.nu.suse.lists.linux.kernel>
2002-04-23 7:17 ` Andi Kleen
2002-04-23 19:09 ` george anzinger
2002-04-24 1:42 ` Alan Cox
2002-04-24 20:20 ` george anzinger
2002-04-27 20:26 ` Alan Cox
2002-04-28 6:02 ` george anzinger
2002-04-28 9:12 ` Alan Cox
2002-04-28 17:34 ` george anzinger
2002-04-28 18:59 ` Alan Cox
2002-04-28 21:50 ` george anzinger
2002-04-29 0:14 ` Alan Cox
2002-04-23 19:24 ` george anzinger
2002-04-23 19:35 ` Andi Kleen
2002-04-24 17:25 ` Maciej W. Rozycki
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=20020417084404.A9382@borg.org \
--to=kentborg@borg.org \
--cc=herbert@gondor.apana.org.au \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/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