From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756238AbcHVRrP (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Aug 2016 13:47:15 -0400 Received: from mail-wm0-f65.google.com ([74.125.82.65]:35330 "EHLO mail-wm0-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752371AbcHVRrM (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Aug 2016 13:47:12 -0400 Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2016 19:47:09 +0200 From: Michal Hocko To: Minchan Kim Cc: Sonny Rao , Jann Horn , Robert Foss , corbet@lwn.net, Andrew Morton , Vlastimil Babka , Konstantin Khlebnikov , Hugh Dickins , Naoya Horiguchi , John Stultz , ross.zwisler@linux.intel.com, jmarchan@redhat.com, Johannes Weiner , Kees Cook , Al Viro , Cyrill Gorcunov , Robin Humble , David Rientjes , eric.engestrom@imgtec.com, Janis Danisevskis , calvinowens@fb.com, Alexey Dobriyan , "Kirill A. Shutemov" , ldufour@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Ben Zhang , Bryan Freed , Filipe Brandenburger , Mateusz Guzik Subject: Re: [PACTH v2 0/3] Implement /proc//totmaps Message-ID: <20160822174709.GD7043@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20160818074433.GC30162@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20160818180104.GS30162@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20160819022634.GA14206@bbox> <20160819080532.GC32619@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20160822000745.GA21441@bbox> <20160822074052.GC13596@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20160822141241.GA3464@blaptop> <20160822164554.GA7043@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20160822172936.GC7043@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160822172936.GC7043@dhcp22.suse.cz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.0 (2016-04-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon 22-08-16 19:29:36, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Mon 22-08-16 18:45:54, Michal Hocko wrote: > [...] > > I have no idea why those numbers are so different on my laptop > > yet. It surely looks suspicious. I will try to debug this further > > tomorrow. > > Hmm, so I've tried to use my version of awk on other machine and vice > versa and it didn't make any difference. So this is independent on the > awk version it seems. So I've tried to strace /usr/bin/time and > wait4(-1, [{WIFEXITED(s) && WEXITSTATUS(s) == 0}], 0, {ru_utime={0, 0}, ru_stime={0, 688438}, ...}) = 9128 > > so the kernel indeed reports 0 user time for some reason. Note I > was testing with 4.7 and right now with 4.8.0-rc3 kernel (no local > modifications). The other machine which reports non-0 utime is 3.12 > SLES kernel. Maybe I am hitting some accounting bug. At first I was > suspecting CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL because that is the main difference between > my and the other machine but then I've noticed that the tests I was > doing in kvm have this disabled too.. so it must be something else. 4.5 reports non-0 while 4.6 zero utime. NO_HZ configuration is the same in both kernels. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs