linux-kernel - Re: [stable] 2.6.23 regression: top displaying 9999% CPU usage

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

Date:	Mon, 29 Oct 2007 21:41:16 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
Cc:	Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Frans Pop <elendil@...net.nl>,
	Chuck Ebbert <cebbert@...hat.com>, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
	stable@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [stable] 2.6.23 regression: top displaying 9999% CPU usage


* Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com> wrote:

> > -	return clock_t_to_cputime(utime);
> > +	p->prev_utime = max(p->prev_utime, clock_t_to_cputime(utime));
> > +	return p->prev_utime;
> >  }
> [...]
> 
> I dont think it will work. It will make utime monotic, but stime can 
> still decrease. For example let sum_exec_runtime increase by a tiny 
> little bit while utime will get a full additional tick. stime is 
> sum-utime. So stime can still go backwards. So I think that we need 
> this kind of logic for stime as well, no?

yeah, probably. Peter?

	Ingo
-
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/