| 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: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 13:56:48 -0500 From: "Tom Burns" <tom.i.burns@...il.com> To: "Tim Schmielau" <tim@...sik3.uni-rostock.de> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: Bug: 2.6.15 Process accounting fails to account for small time slice loads (still) Hi Tim. That would be great if you could find that patch - I can worry about porting it to the current kernel. We're having an issue where our device, while routing large amounts of network traffic, reports 0% CPU utilisation when it cannot be the case, and I think this is the cause. Cheers, Tom Burns On 1/30/07, Tim Schmielau <tim@...sik3.uni-rostock.de> wrote: > On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, Tom Burns wrote: > > > The bug described back in 2004 in the following message still seems to exist: > > > > http://linux.derkeiler.com/Mailing-Lists/Kernel/2004-05/4313.html > > > > Essentially, it appears that if a process sleeps before it uses up a > > complete jiffy then no charge is made to its process accounting table. > > That's not a bug, it's a feature. ;-) > > More seriously, it's a design decision. The benefit of exactly correct > micro bookkeeping does not seem to warrant the extra cost in terms of cpu > cycles spent in the accounting code. > > IIRC there was a patch for that some years ago, if you are interested I > will try to find it. No idea how much work it would be to port it to > current kernels, though. > > Tim > - 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