[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1193692264.5644.82.camel@lappy>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 22:11:04 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
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>
Subject: Re: [stable] 2.6.23 regression: top displaying 9999% CPU usage
On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 21:41 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * 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?
/me dons the brown paper bag while mumbling an agreement of sorts.
I'll not attempt to come up with a patch as I fear I'll just make a
bigger mess in my current state, hope to feel better tomorrow..
-
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