From: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
To: Frans Pop <elendil@planet.nl>
Cc: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>,
stable@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Subject: Re: [stable] 2.6.23 regression: top displaying 9999% CPU usage
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 22:36:10 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200710142236.10768.borntraeger@de.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200710130953.22099.elendil@planet.nl>
Am Samstag, 13. Oktober 2007 schrieb Frans Pop:
> > > Please consider this patch for 2.6.23.2
> > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/10/4/389
> > Is it already in Linus's tree? If so, do you have a git commit id? If
> > not, please let us (stable@) know when it is, and what the id is, and
> > then we can add it to our tree.
>
> Not AFAICT.
> CCing Christian (as patch author) and Ingo (as author of the change that
> caused the regression) so they can push it through the correct channels.
>
I dont know how to proceed with this issue. The more I think about it, the
more I am convinced that using sum_exec_runtime together with sampled utime
and stime will never guarantee monotonicity for utime and stime in proc.
Just imagine an process with 9 ticks for utime and 0 ticks for stime. If
we now sample one tick for stime (but having only a small increase in
sum_exec_runtime) the next utime value will only be 90% of the last value.
So returning to the 2.6.22 model seems to be the safest solution until
somebody else comes up with an idea that works proper.
Ingo, any opinion?
Christian
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-10-14 20:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-10-12 20:31 Frans Pop
2007-10-12 21:22 ` [stable] " Greg KH
2007-10-13 7:53 ` Frans Pop
2007-10-14 20:36 ` Christian Borntraeger [this message]
2007-10-16 8:29 ` Christian Borntraeger
2007-10-16 9:30 ` Balbir Singh
2007-10-16 10:11 ` Frans Pop
2007-10-16 10:38 ` Balbir Singh
2007-10-16 10:34 ` Christian Borntraeger
2007-10-16 12:59 ` Balbir Singh
2007-10-29 12:05 ` Frans Pop
2007-10-29 12:31 ` Balbir Singh
2007-10-29 20:04 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-10-29 20:33 ` Christian Borntraeger
2007-10-29 20:41 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-10-29 21:11 ` Peter Zijlstra
2007-10-29 21:22 ` Frans Pop
2007-10-29 21:43 ` Balbir Singh
2007-10-29 23:19 ` Frans Pop
2007-10-29 23:22 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-10-30 20:22 ` Otavio Salvador
2007-10-29 23:24 ` Balbir Singh
2007-10-30 5:56 ` Christian Borntraeger
2007-10-30 6:00 ` Balbir Singh
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200710142236.10768.borntraeger@de.ibm.com \
--to=borntraeger@de.ibm.com \
--cc=elendil@planet.nl \
--cc=greg@kroah.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=stable@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome