On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, Tom Burns wrote:
> 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
On Tuesday 30 January 2007 17:24, you 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 cha
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,
To
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
Problem also verified to exist on kernel:
2.6.17-5mdv #1 SMP Wed Sep 13 14:28:02 EDT 2006 x86_64 Intel(R)
Core(TM)2 CPU 6400 @ 2.13GHz GNU/Linux
Cheers,
Tom Burns
On 1/30/07, Tom Burns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The bug described back in 2004 in the following message still seems to ex
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.
This proble
6 matches
Mail list logo
