Nice! As you mentioned in an earlier post, I looked at the debian fork of procps-utils which I didn't know the existence. It mainly contains all patches from the mainline sources + lots of long options and their updated manual pages. It also support control groups as displayed by "ps -o cgroup".
I have successfully installed this fork on my lfs build, and it works well. Personally, I don't use these improvements at all, but don't make use of control groups too. So not sure these non-essential stuffs are useful to most users but maybe someone experienced this fork deeper than me. Bertrand Le 05/09/2011 09:08, DJ Lucas a écrit : > On 09/04/2011 11:48 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: >> DJ Lucas wrote: >>> On 06/07/2011 05:16 AM, LANOUX Bertrand wrote: >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> I have noticed the "unknown HZ value" message still appears at boot >>>> time and under some unpredictable circumstances when running the ps >>>> command, even after applying the procps-3.2.8-fix_HZ_errors-1.patch >>>> (I currently use a SMP, 2.6.38.4 tickless kernel). So after looking >>>> inside the procps code and patch, I deduced the linux_version_code >>>> variable was not correctly valued. After starting to make my own >>>> patch, I came across a similar issue when looking over the net >>>> (seen on >>>> http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/slackware-14/slackware-13-37-rc-unknown-hz-value-after-procps-upgrade-871679/). >>>> It seems the constructor functions don't run as the package expect >>>> on recent libgcc. >>>> >>>> After applying it, the message definitively disappeared. The patch >>>> is attached (another solution is to prioritize the constructor >>>> functions). >>>> >>>> It works well since quite a while for me now, so may it be taken >>>> into account for those who have encountered the same inconvenience. >>>> Have a look ? >>>> >>>> Thanks for reading, >>>> >>>> Bertrand. >>>> >>> Upstream patch committed as procps-3.2.8-fix_HZ_errors-2.patch. Still >>> needs to be updated in the book. >> DJ, It's unclear to me if the -2 patch should be done in addition to the >> -1 patch or if it should just replace the -1 patch. >> >> -- Bruce > It is a replacement. The Debian changes were not taken upstream, and > didn't work correctly for tickless kernels. > > -- DJ Lucas > > -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
