linux-kernel - Re: Buggy idle time reported in /proc/uptime for SMP systems?

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 19 Oct 2007 00:42:56 +0530
From:	Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, pbadari@...ibm.com,
	dhaval@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: Buggy idle time reported in /proc/uptime for SMP systems?

On Thu, Oct 18, 2007 at 09:55:13PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> The idle time reported in /proc/uptime (2nd field) seems to be the idle
> time of only CPU0. Shouldn't it reflect the total idle time on a SMP system? 
> Do folks agree that it is a bug that needs to be fixed? If so, will send
> a patch ...

On further reflection, it doesn't sound buggy. Reporting idle time across all
cpus in /proc/uptime will cause idle time > uptime, which will be odd. I
guess if anyone wants strict idle time from all cpus, they can always
look at /proc/stat.

> Fyi, I see patches submitted to fix this way back in 2001
> [http://lkml.org/lkml/2001/3/17/55], but don't think they made in ..

-- 
Regards,
vatsa
-
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/