[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.00.0905110938210.667@fbirervta.pbzchgretzou.qr>
Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 09:42:03 +0200 (CEST)
From: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ozas.de>
To: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>
cc: Michael Abbott <michael@...neidae.co.uk>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: /proc/uptime idle counter remains at 0
On Monday 2009-05-11 09:35, Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
>> I have to confess I don't really understand the logic of what's going on
>> here -- in particular, what does the idle process do other than account
>> for time when the processor has nothing useful to do? It does seem to me
>> now that the .utime and .stime fields are now less than useful -- maybe
>> they can be deleted now?
>
>The idle task does not just sleep, it will do "real" work, e.g. softirq
>handling for interrupts / network traffic.
With an RT kernel, SIRQ and such are separate tasks. That should also
be play a role while 0 is displayed.
>> I've always assumed that the second field of /proc/uptime was a simple
>> measure of time not spent doing real work, in other words a crude measure
>> of spare CPU resources. My instrument basically uses the the two fields
>> of this file to compute a measure of CPU loading so it can raise an alert
>> if the CPU doesn't have enough spare (idle) capacity.
>
>But it wasn't.. the old style stime of idle is a mixture of true idle
>time and some system time.
Then I would say let's show the idle time only (but still inculde
the idle time when the CPU is halted).
--
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