linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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.


  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).