linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Michael Abbott <michael@araneidae.co.uk>,
	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@medozas.de>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Johan van Baarlen <JF@vanbaarlen.demon.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: /proc/uptime idle counter remains at 0
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 10:02:47 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090909100247.2acaceff@skybase> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090908225858.04d56dce.akpm@linux-foundation.org>

On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 22:58:58 -0700
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 13:18:08 +0100 (BST) Michael Abbott <michael@araneidae.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> > Reviving this:
> > 
> > On Sat, 9 May 2009, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> > > starting from v2.6.28-4930-g79741dd lasting thru at least v2.6.29.1,
> > > the second field of /proc/uptime always shows 0.00. This happens for
> > > both the typical i386 (my case) and on an ARM (according to Michael,
> > > cc'ed).
> > > 
> > > >From the commit log of 79741dd:
> > > 
> > > 	"""The cpu time spent by the idle process actually doing
> > > 	something is currently accounted as idle time. This is plain
> > > 	wrong, the architectures that support VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING=y
> > > 	can do better: distinguish between the time spent doing
> > > 	nothing and the time spent by idle doing work. The first is
> > > 	accounted with account_idle_time and the second with
> > > 	account_system_time."""
> > > 
> > > Citing Michael from our irc conversation:
> > > 
> > > 	"""the writer[committer] [says] that [the] idle process time
> > > 	isn't really idle time ... but that's all that /proc/uptime
> > > 	looks at. I guess fs/proc/uptime.c needs to catch up."""
> > > 
> > > So, were the updates to uptime.c missed, or do we now live on with
> > > /proc/uptime constantly having 0?
> > 
> > My previous patch seems to have run into the sand.  It every so nearly got 
> > pulled into mainstream as far as I can tell, but didn't seem to make it; 
> > no idea what happened.
> > 
> > So here we go again:
> > 
> 
> Imagine my surprise to find a version of this patch lurking in Martin's
> tree since June 22.  It's a regression fix!
> 
> Johan, does this patch help with the regression you reported in
> http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14131 ?

I did send a Please-Pull for the cputime branch back in May. Seems like it
never has been pulled. I don't know why, so perhaps I should just retry. 


-- 
blue skies,
   Martin.

"Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin.


  reply	other threads:[~2009-09-09  8:02 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 26+ 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
2009-08-14 12:18 ` [PATCH] " 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 [this message]
2009-09-10 13:02     ` Johan van Baarlen
2009-09-10 15:37       ` Martin Schwidefsky
2009-09-10 16:27         ` Michael Abbott
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2009-05-18 13:23 Michael Abbott
2009-05-18 14:00 ` Martin Schwidefsky
2009-05-25 10:28 ` Martin Schwidefsky
2009-07-06 15:48   ` Michael Abbott
2009-07-06 15:56     ` Jan Engelhardt
2009-07-06 16:09       ` 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=20090909100247.2acaceff@skybase \
    --to=schwidefsky@de.ibm.com \
    --cc=JF@vanbaarlen.demon.nl \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --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).