From: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>
To: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@medozas.de>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
michael@araneidae.co.uk
Subject: Re: /proc/uptime idle counter remains at 0
Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 09:23:57 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090511092357.482ae8e9@skybase> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LSU.2.00.0905110237310.17675@fbirervta.pbzchgretzou.qr>
On Mon, 11 May 2009 02:46:03 +0200 (CEST)
Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@medozas.de> wrote:
>
> On Sunday 2009-05-10 19:12, Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
> >>
> >> So, were the updates to uptime.c missed, or do we now live on with
> >> /proc/uptime constantly having 0?
> >
> >The second paragraph from git commit 79741dd tells you more about this:
> >
> >In addition idle time is no more added to the stime of the idle
> >process. This field now contains the system time of the idle process as
> >it should be. On systems without VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING this will always
> >be zero as every tick that occurs while idle is running will be
> >accounted as idle time.
> >
> >The point is the semantics of the stime field for the idle process. The
> >stime field used to contain the real system time (cpu really did
> >something) of the idle process plus the idle time (cpu is stopped).
> >After the change the field only contains the real system time. Which is
> >ihmo much more useful, no?
>
> Actually doing something while idle would then probably be limited to
> CPUs that have no HLT instruction/state, like ancient i386, right?
>
> Are the semantics of /proc/uptime (more-or-less standardsly) defined
> somewhere, e.g. written down into a manual page?
Not really, the second field is the stime of the idle process for the
boot cpu. This is a mixture of the time spent in idle doing work and
waiting on hlt. In an smp system with multiple task_structs with stime
fields it makes even less sense. The field is ill defined.
> Nevertheless, one could argue that, hypothetically, some people or
> their scripts interpreted the second field as the time that there was
> no process running; sort of a minimalistic way to tell the average
> system use in % beyond the 1/5/15-loadavg counters. So the field could be
> kept, or now that 2nd place displays 0.00, be re-added. Depending on
> how “standardized” /proc/uptime's format is, the 0.00 could either
> stay as second position or move to third position.
>
> > cat /proc/uptime
> 496468.50 432205.41
> > bc -l <<<'100-(432205.41*100/496468.50)'
> 12.94 (%)
That would work on a uni-processor. On an smp with cpu hotplug you'll
get interesting results..
--
blue skies,
Martin.
"Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-05-11 7:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-05-09 8:05 /proc/uptime idle counter remains at 0 Jan Engelhardt
2009-05-10 17:12 ` Martin Schwidefsky
2009-05-11 0:46 ` Jan Engelhardt
2009-05-11 6:23 ` [PATCH] " Michael Abbott
2009-05-11 7:35 ` Martin Schwidefsky
2009-05-11 7:42 ` Jan Engelhardt
2009-05-11 8:10 ` Martin Schwidefsky
2009-05-11 9:07 ` Michael Abbott
2009-05-11 7:23 ` Martin Schwidefsky [this message]
2009-08-14 12:18 ` Michael Abbott
2009-08-17 5:25 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-08-17 6:12 ` Michael Abbott
2009-08-17 6:23 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-08-17 6:58 ` Michael Abbott
2009-08-17 8:23 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-09-09 5:58 ` Andrew Morton
2009-09-09 8:02 ` Martin Schwidefsky
2009-09-10 13:02 ` Johan van Baarlen
2009-09-10 15:37 ` Martin Schwidefsky
2009-09-10 16:27 ` Michael Abbott
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=20090511092357.482ae8e9@skybase \
--to=schwidefsky@de.ibm.com \
--cc=jengelh@medozas.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=michael@araneidae.co.uk \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).