From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754958Ab1K0L5O (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Nov 2011 06:57:14 -0500 Received: from smtprelay0205.b.hostedemail.com ([64.98.42.205]:56818 "EHLO smtprelay.b.hostedemail.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752596Ab1K0L5O (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Nov 2011 06:57:14 -0500 X-Panda: scanned! X-Session-Marker: 742E617274656D406C79636F732E636F6D X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 2105 Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2011 11:57:12 +0000 (GMT) From: "Artem S. Tashkinov" To: rjw@sisk.pl Cc: tino.keitel@tikei.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <2103936926.165868.1322395032341.JavaMail.mail@webmail17> References: <1718181782.740375.1322130615898.JavaMail.mail@webmail19> <20111124200553.GA13353@mac.home> <20111127110400.GA4672@mac.home> <201111271245.57772.rjw@sisk.pl> Subject: Re: Re: [REGRESSION] [Linux 3.2] top/htop and all other CPU usage metering applications has gone crackers MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Webmail X-Originating-IP: [46.146.42.45] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > On Nov 27, 2011, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Sunday, November 27, 2011, Tino Keitel wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 21:05:53 +0100, Tino Keitel wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 10:30:15 +0000, Artem S. Tashkinov wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > I'd like to report a weird regression in Linux 3.2 (running rc3 now) - all CPU metering applications have gone terribly mad > > > > under this kernel: > > > > > > I get the same using top, htop and the gnome system monitor with kernel > > > 3.2 on a Sandy Bridge quad core box, running Debian unstable. > > > > I just tested 3.2-rc2, and see the same bug. > > I'm seeing that too on one of my test boxes, but not all the time > (i.e. there are periods in which the readings are correct). The other boxes > I've tested with 3.2-rc are fine in that respect. > > Also, it seems that it shows 100%-(real load) when it is wrong. So, it looks > like there's an overflow somewhere in the CPU load measuring code, at least > on some CPUs. > > What's your CPU, BTW? Intel Core i5 2500, i686 Best wishes, Artem