public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Frans Pop <elendil@planet.nl>, Chuck Ebbert <cebbert@redhat.com>,
	Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>,
	stable@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [stable] 2.6.23 regression: top displaying 9999% CPU usage
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 21:33:48 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <200710292133.48125.borntraeger@de.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20071029200425.GA830@elte.hu>

Am Montag, 29. Oktober 2007 schrieb Ingo Molnar:
> i've got a patch from Peter queued up. (see below) This should fix the 
> main issue.
[...]
> --- linux.orig/fs/proc/array.c
> +++ linux/fs/proc/array.c
> @@ -358,7 +358,8 @@ static cputime_t task_utime(struct task_
>  	}
>  	utime = (clock_t)temp;
> 
> -	return clock_t_to_cputime(utime);
> +	p->prev_utime = max(p->prev_utime, clock_t_to_cputime(utime));
> +	return p->prev_utime;
>  }
[...]

I dont think it will work. It will make utime monotic, but stime can still 
decrease. For example let sum_exec_runtime increase by a tiny little bit while
utime will get a full additional tick. stime is sum-utime. So stime can still
go backwards. So I think that we need this kind of logic for stime as well, 
no?

Christian




  reply	other threads:[~2007-10-29 20:34 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2007-10-12 20:31 2.6.23 regression: top displaying 9999% CPU usage Frans Pop
2007-10-12 21:22 ` [stable] " Greg KH
2007-10-13  7:53   ` Frans Pop
2007-10-14 20:36     ` Christian Borntraeger
2007-10-16  8:29       ` Christian Borntraeger
2007-10-16  9:30         ` Balbir Singh
2007-10-16 10:11           ` Frans Pop
2007-10-16 10:38             ` Balbir Singh
2007-10-16 10:34           ` Christian Borntraeger
2007-10-16 12:59             ` Balbir Singh
2007-10-29 12:05               ` Frans Pop
2007-10-29 12:31                 ` Balbir Singh
2007-10-29 20:04                   ` Ingo Molnar
2007-10-29 20:33                     ` Christian Borntraeger [this message]
2007-10-29 20:41                       ` Ingo Molnar
2007-10-29 21:11                         ` Peter Zijlstra
2007-10-29 21:22                         ` Frans Pop
2007-10-29 21:43                     ` Balbir Singh
2007-10-29 23:19                       ` Frans Pop
2007-10-29 23:22                         ` Ingo Molnar
2007-10-30 20:22                           ` Otavio Salvador
2007-10-29 23:24                         ` Balbir Singh
2007-10-30  5:56                       ` Christian Borntraeger
2007-10-30  6:00                         ` Balbir Singh

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=200710292133.48125.borntraeger@de.ibm.com \
    --to=borntraeger@de.ibm.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=cebbert@redhat.com \
    --cc=elendil@planet.nl \
    --cc=greg@kroah.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=stable@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