| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 22:36:10 +0200 From: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com> To: Frans Pop <elendil@...net.nl> Cc: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, stable@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> Subject: Re: [stable] 2.6.23 regression: top displaying 9999% CPU usage Am Samstag, 13. Oktober 2007 schrieb Frans Pop: > > > Please consider this patch for 2.6.23.2 > > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/10/4/389 > > Is it already in Linus's tree? If so, do you have a git commit id? If > > not, please let us (stable@) know when it is, and what the id is, and > > then we can add it to our tree. > > Not AFAICT. > CCing Christian (as patch author) and Ingo (as author of the change that > caused the regression) so they can push it through the correct channels. > I dont know how to proceed with this issue. The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that using sum_exec_runtime together with sampled utime and stime will never guarantee monotonicity for utime and stime in proc. Just imagine an process with 9 ticks for utime and 0 ticks for stime. If we now sample one tick for stime (but having only a small increase in sum_exec_runtime) the next utime value will only be 90% of the last value. So returning to the 2.6.22 model seems to be the safest solution until somebody else comes up with an idea that works proper. Ingo, any opinion? Christian - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists