[lkml]   [2002]   [Apr]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Why HZ on i386 is 100 ?
On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 08:37:43AM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Why are we still measuring uptime using the tick variable? Ticks != time.
> Surely we should be recording the boot time somewhere (probably on a
> file system), and then comparing that with the current time?

It depends on the meaning of "is", er, opps, I mean: it depends on the
meaning of "uptime".

The notebook I am typing on at this moment was last booted just about
exactly 8 days ago (judging from the timestamp on /var/log/dmesg) but
in a cat-like way it spends a lot of its time asleep and so top
reports an uptime of only "4 days, 2:42".

Which is correct? I suggest that the smaller number is closer to
correct because that is roughly the amount of time the system has
actually spent running.

-kb, the Kent who expects this question to get more complicated as the
new suspend gets more and more clever and if the kernel ever starts
seriously catnapping on its own.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:25    [W:0.129 / U:0.024 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site