Hi Tim.
That would be great if you could find that patch - I can worry about
porting it to the current kernel. We're having an issue where our
device, while routing large amounts of network traffic, reports 0% CPU
utilisation when it cannot be the case, and I think this is the cause.
Cheers,
Tom Burns
On 1/30/07, Tim Schmielau <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, Tom Burns wrote:
> The bug described back in 2004 in the following message still seems to exist:
>
> http://linux.derkeiler.com/Mailing-Lists/Kernel/2004-05/4313.html
>
> Essentially, it appears that if a process sleeps before it uses up a
> complete jiffy then no charge is made to its process accounting table.
That's not a bug, it's a feature. ;-)
More seriously, it's a design decision. The benefit of exactly correct
micro bookkeeping does not seem to warrant the extra cost in terms of cpu
cycles spent in the accounting code.
IIRC there was a patch for that some years ago, if you are interested I
will try to find it. No idea how much work it would be to port it to
current kernels, though.
Tim
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
