Re: sched/cputime: sig->prev_stime underflow

2013-05-03 Thread Stanislaw Gruszka
On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 09:05:28AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: > On 04/30/2013 05:36 AM, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 02:05:22PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: > >>> But since this (most likely) is rtime monotonicity problem it > >>> is bug by itself and probably that should be fix

Re: sched/cputime: sig->prev_stime underflow

2013-05-02 Thread Dave Hansen
On 04/30/2013 05:36 AM, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote: > On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 02:05:22PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: >>> But since this (most likely) is rtime monotonicity problem it >>> is bug by itself and probably that should be fixed. Can you >>> check second patch attached and see if it trigger th

Re: sched/cputime: sig->prev_stime underflow

2013-04-30 Thread Stanislaw Gruszka
On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 02:05:22PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: > > But since this (most likely) is rtime monotonicity problem it > > is bug by itself and probably that should be fixed. Can you > > check second patch attached and see if it trigger the warning. > > Yup, it triggers lots of warnings.

Re: sched/cputime: sig->prev_stime underflow

2013-04-16 Thread Dave Hansen
On 04/16/2013 04:06 AM, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote: > On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 11:47:37AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: >> On 04/11/2013 12:45 AM, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote: >>> On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 08:57:16AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: On 04/04/2013 04:41 PM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > Does thi

Re: sched/cputime: sig->prev_stime underflow

2013-04-16 Thread Stanislaw Gruszka
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 11:47:37AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: > On 04/11/2013 12:45 AM, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 08:57:16AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: > >> On 04/04/2013 04:41 PM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > >>> Does this patch fix the issue for you? > >>> https://lkml.or

Re: sched/cputime: sig->prev_stime underflow

2013-04-11 Thread Dave Hansen
On 04/11/2013 12:45 AM, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote: > On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 08:57:16AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: >> On 04/04/2013 04:41 PM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: >>> Does this patch fix the issue for you? >>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/4/4/112 >> >> Nope, that doesn't seem to make a difference.

Re: sched/cputime: sig->prev_stime underflow

2013-04-11 Thread Stanislaw Gruszka
On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 08:57:16AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: > On 04/04/2013 04:41 PM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > Does this patch fix the issue for you? > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/4/4/112 > > Nope, that doesn't seem to make a difference. I'm still seeing the > underflow. I'm pretty sure

Re: sched/cputime: sig->prev_stime underflow

2013-04-08 Thread Dave Hansen
On 04/04/2013 04:41 PM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > Does this patch fix the issue for you? > https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/4/4/112 Nope, that doesn't seem to make a difference. I'm still seeing the underflow. I'm pretty sure it's already gone to hell by the time it gets in to the loop that's patch

Re: sched/cputime: sig->prev_stime underflow

2013-04-04 Thread Frederic Weisbecker
2013/4/4 Dave Hansen : > With the 3.9-rcs (and probably much earlier) I'm seeing some weird top > output where the cpu time "spent" is millions of hours: > > 445 root 20 0 000 S0 0.0 5124095h kworker/45:1 > 404 root 20 0 000 S0 0.0 5124095h kworker/

sched/cputime: sig->prev_stime underflow

2013-04-04 Thread Dave Hansen
With the 3.9-rcs (and probably much earlier) I'm seeing some weird top output where the cpu time "spent" is millions of hours: 445 root 20 0 000 S0 0.0 5124095h kworker/45:1 404 root 20 0 000 S0 0.0 5124095h kworker/4:1 I see it mostly with kernel