Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 17 Aug 2009 14:23:24 +0800 | From | Amerigo Wang <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Re: /proc/uptime idle counter remains at 0 |
| |
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 07:12:36AM +0100, Michael Abbott wrote: >On Mon, 17 Aug 2009, Amerigo Wang wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 01:18:08PM +0100, Michael Abbott wrote: >> >commit 6d67e34f45a92f347388e35bd84bf0361e660d3b >> >Author: Michael Abbott <michael.abbott@diamond.ac.uk> >> >Date: Mon May 11 07:14:19 2009 +0100 >> > >> > Fix idle time field in /proc/uptime >> > >> > Git commit 79741dd changes idle cputime accounting, but unfortunately >> > the /proc/uptime file hasn't caught up. Here the idle time calculation >> > from /proc/stat is copied over. Further changes from commit e1c8053 >> > are also included in this fix. >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Michael Abbott <michael.abbott@diamond.ac.uk> >> > >> >diff --git a/fs/proc/uptime.c b/fs/proc/uptime.c >> >index 0c10a0b..be286b4 100644 >> >--- a/fs/proc/uptime.c >> >+++ b/fs/proc/uptime.c >> >@@ -4,22 +4,32 @@ >> > #include <linux/sched.h> >> > #include <linux/seq_file.h> >> > #include <linux/time.h> >> >+#include <linux/kernel_stat.h> >> > #include <asm/cputime.h> >> >+#include <asm/div64.h> >> > >> > static int uptime_proc_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v) >> > { >> > struct timespec uptime; >> >- struct timespec idle; >> >- cputime_t idletime = cputime_add(init_task.utime, init_task.stime); >> >+ int i; >> >+ cputime64_t idle = cputime64_zero; >> >+ unsigned long int idle_mod; >> >+ >> >+ for_each_possible_cpu(i) { >> >+ idle = cputime64_add(idle, kstat_cpu(i).cpustat.idle); >> >+#ifdef arch_idle_time >> >+ idle = cputime64_add(idle, arch_idle_time(i)); >> >+#endif >> >> >> This ugly #ifdef can be removed, check fs/proc/stat.c. > >I'm sorry? Are you sure? Here is what fs/proc/stat.c has to say: > >#ifndef arch_idle_time >#define arch_idle_time(cpu) 0 >#endif >... > idle = cputime64_add(idle, arch_idle_time(i)); > > >I think what you're actually saying is the #ifdef can be moved to >somewhere where it can be easily missed. For this very reason, I'd rather >be more explicit about it.
Yes, indeed.
I was suggesting to move that #ifdef into some header so that both two files can use it. For me, this is the better fix.
Thanks.
| |