Il Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 01:32:44AM +0200, Frans Pop ha scritto: > On Wednesday 03 October 2007, you wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 09:27:41PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote: > > > On Wednesday 03 October 2007, you wrote: > > > > On Wed, 3 Oct 2007, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 3 Oct 2007, Frans Pop wrote: > > > > > > The only change is in 2 consecutive columns: "2911 502" -> "2912 > > > > > > 500". Is processor usage calculated from those? Can someone > > > > > > explain how? > > > > > > > > > > The latter seems to be utime ...decreasing. No wonder if > > > > > arithmetics will give strange results (probably top is using > > > > > unsigned delta?)... > > > > > > > > Hmm, minor miscounting from my side, stime seems more appropriate... > > > > > > So, is it normal that stime decreases sometimes or a kernel bug? > > > /me expects the last... > > > > Let me guess... Dual core AMD64 ? > > Nope: Intel(R) Pentium(R) D CPU 3.20GHz
I just notice the same thing here, with a Core2 Duo (which is supposed to have synced TSCs) and working HPET. > The following may well be relevant. > With 2.6.22 and early 2.6.23-rc kernels (rc3-rc6) I often had this in my > kernel log (see http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/9/16/45): > checking TSC synchronization [CPU#0 -> CPU#1]: > Measured 248 cycles TSC warp between CPUs, turning off TSC clock. > Marking TSC unstable due to check_tsc_sync_source failed I don't see this though, TSCs are always syncronized between the 2 cores. Luca -- Ligabue canta: "Tutti vogliono viaggiare in primaaaa..." Io ci ho provato e dopo un chilometro ho fuso il motore e bruciato la frizione... - 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/
