From: Amerigo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>
To: Michael Abbott <michael@araneidae.co.uk>
Cc: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@medozas.de>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: /proc/uptime idle counter remains at 0
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 13:25:02 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090817052502.GJ5039@cr0.nay.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0908141315310.1670@venus.araneidae.co.uk>
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 01:18:08PM +0100, Michael Abbott wrote:
>Reviving this:
>
>On Sat, 9 May 2009, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>> starting from v2.6.28-4930-g79741dd lasting thru at least v2.6.29.1,
>> the second field of /proc/uptime always shows 0.00. This happens for
>> both the typical i386 (my case) and on an ARM (according to Michael,
>> cc'ed).
>>
>> >From the commit log of 79741dd:
>>
>> """The cpu time spent by the idle process actually doing
>> something is currently accounted as idle time. This is plain
>> wrong, the architectures that support VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING=y
>> can do better: distinguish between the time spent doing
>> nothing and the time spent by idle doing work. The first is
>> accounted with account_idle_time and the second with
>> account_system_time."""
>>
>> Citing Michael from our irc conversation:
>>
>> """the writer[committer] [says] that [the] idle process time
>> isn't really idle time ... but that's all that /proc/uptime
>> looks at. I guess fs/proc/uptime.c needs to catch up."""
>>
>> So, were the updates to uptime.c missed, or do we now live on with
>> /proc/uptime constantly having 0?
>
>My previous patch seems to have run into the sand. It every so nearly got
>pulled into mainstream as far as I can tell, but didn't seem to make it;
>no idea what happened.
>
>So here we go again:
>
>commit 6d67e34f45a92f347388e35bd84bf0361e660d3b
>Author: Michael Abbott <michael.abbott@diamond.ac.uk>
>Date: Mon May 11 07:14:19 2009 +0100
>
> Fix idle time field in /proc/uptime
>
> Git commit 79741dd changes idle cputime accounting, but unfortunately
> the /proc/uptime file hasn't caught up. Here the idle time calculation
> from /proc/stat is copied over. Further changes from commit e1c8053
> are also included in this fix.
>
> Signed-off-by: Michael Abbott <michael.abbott@diamond.ac.uk>
>
>diff --git a/fs/proc/uptime.c b/fs/proc/uptime.c
>index 0c10a0b..be286b4 100644
>--- a/fs/proc/uptime.c
>+++ b/fs/proc/uptime.c
>@@ -4,22 +4,32 @@
> #include <linux/sched.h>
> #include <linux/seq_file.h>
> #include <linux/time.h>
>+#include <linux/kernel_stat.h>
> #include <asm/cputime.h>
>+#include <asm/div64.h>
>
> static int uptime_proc_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
> {
> struct timespec uptime;
>- struct timespec idle;
>- cputime_t idletime = cputime_add(init_task.utime, init_task.stime);
>+ int i;
>+ cputime64_t idle = cputime64_zero;
>+ unsigned long int idle_mod;
>+
>+ for_each_possible_cpu(i) {
>+ idle = cputime64_add(idle, kstat_cpu(i).cpustat.idle);
>+#ifdef arch_idle_time
>+ idle = cputime64_add(idle, arch_idle_time(i));
>+#endif
This ugly #ifdef can be removed, check fs/proc/stat.c.
Thanks.
>+ }
>+ idle = cputime64_to_clock_t(idle);
>+ idle_mod = do_div(idle, 100);
>
> do_posix_clock_monotonic_gettime(&uptime);
> monotonic_to_bootbased(&uptime);
>- cputime_to_timespec(idletime, &idle);
>- seq_printf(m, "%lu.%02lu %lu.%02lu\n",
>+ seq_printf(m, "%lu.%02lu %llu.%02lu\n",
> (unsigned long) uptime.tv_sec,
> (uptime.tv_nsec / (NSEC_PER_SEC / 100)),
>- (unsigned long) idle.tv_sec,
>- (idle.tv_nsec / (NSEC_PER_SEC / 100)));
>+ idle, idle_mod);
> return 0;
> }
>
>--
>To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
>the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-08-17 5:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-05-09 8:05 Jan Engelhardt
2009-05-10 17:12 ` Martin Schwidefsky
2009-05-11 0:46 ` Jan Engelhardt
2009-05-11 6:23 ` [PATCH] " Michael Abbott
2009-05-11 7:35 ` Martin Schwidefsky
2009-05-11 7:42 ` Jan Engelhardt
2009-05-11 8:10 ` Martin Schwidefsky
2009-05-11 9:07 ` Michael Abbott
2009-05-11 7:23 ` Martin Schwidefsky
2009-08-14 12:18 ` [PATCH] " Michael Abbott
2009-08-17 5:25 ` Amerigo Wang [this message]
2009-08-17 6:12 ` Michael Abbott
2009-08-17 6:23 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-08-17 6:58 ` Michael Abbott
2009-08-17 8:23 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-09-09 5:58 ` Andrew Morton
2009-09-09 8:02 ` Martin Schwidefsky
2009-09-10 13:02 ` Johan van Baarlen
2009-09-10 15:37 ` Martin Schwidefsky
2009-09-10 16:27 ` Michael Abbott
2009-05-18 13:23 Michael Abbott
2009-05-18 14:00 ` Martin Schwidefsky
2009-05-25 10:28 ` Martin Schwidefsky
2009-07-06 15:48 ` Michael Abbott
2009-07-06 15:56 ` Jan Engelhardt
2009-07-06 16:09 ` Michael Abbott
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=20090817052502.GJ5039@cr0.nay.redhat.com \
--to=xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com \
--cc=jengelh@medozas.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=michael@araneidae.co.uk \
--cc=schwidefsky@de.ibm.com \
/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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®