Tom Holroyd writes:
> On Wed, 2 May 2001, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
>> For 32-bit systems, we use 32-bit values to reduce overhead.
>> This causes problems at 495/smp_num_cpus days of uptime.
>
> You mean for HZ == 100.
Well, OK. No unmodified 32-bit system runs HZ == 1024.
> And I guess the ove
On Wed, May 02, 2001 at 02:42:58AM -0400, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
> > In .../fs/proc/proc_misc.c:kstat_read_proc(), the cpu line is being
> > computed by:
> >
> > len = sprintf(page, "cpu %u %u %u %lu\n", user, nice, system,
> > jif * smp_num_cpus - (user + nice +
On Wed, 2 May 2001, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
> This is pretty bogus. The idle time can run _backwards_ on an SMP
> system.
True, but it's failing for single CPU systems (like mine), too.
>> I notice also that since kstat.per_cpu_nice is an unsigned int, it's
>> going to overflow in another 3.6
> /proc/uptime:
> 4400586.27 150439.36
>
> /proc/stat:
> cpu 371049158 3972370867 8752820 4448994822
> (user,nice, system, idle)
>
> In .../fs/proc/proc_misc.c:kstat_read_proc(), the cpu line is being
> computed by:
>
> len = sprintf(page, "cpu %u %u %u %lu\n", user, nic
4 matches
Mail list logo
