-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
I a got a test vmware running with a 2.5.70 and I have sligh "overflow"
with my uptime.
gentoo root # uptime
22:29:47 up 14667 days, 19:08, 3 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
I think thats a bit too much ;)
Linux gentoo.tequila.intern 2.5.80 #1 Tue May 27 14:42:51 JST 2003 i686
Intel(R) Penitum(R) 4 CPU 1.60GHz GenuineIntel GNU/Linux
running on a
Gentoo System (unstable tree)
- --
Clemens Schwaighofer - IT Engineer & System Administration
==========================================================
Tequila Japan, 6-17-2 Ginza Chuo-ku, Tokyo 104-8167, JAPAN
Tel: +81-(0)3-3545-7703 Fax: +81-(0)3-3545-7343
http://www.tequila.jp
==========================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQE+6ZA9jBz/yQjBxz8RAgnJAJ4yZTZJuP5QJOZv3Lc9Awnr4sblpQCeOHaD
fgjlR74Svry26Jh+1oBjt6g=
=6rUw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> I a got a test vmware running with a 2.5.70 and I have sligh "overflow"
> with my uptime.
>
> gentoo root # uptime
> 22:29:47 up 14667 days, 19:08, 3 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
Doesn't ring any bell yet. Can you cat /proc/uptime and /proc/stat output?
Is this immediately after booting? Reproducable?
Tim
On Fri, 13 Jun 2003, Tim Schmielau wrote:
> > I a got a test vmware running with a 2.5.70 and I have sligh "overflow"
> > with my uptime.
> >
> > gentoo root # uptime
> > 22:29:47 up 14667 days, 19:08, 3 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
>
> Doesn't ring any bell yet. Can you cat /proc/uptime and /proc/stat output?
> Is this immediately after booting? Reproducable?
I had this happen yesterday with a 2.5.70-bkWhatever from about three days
ago.
Immediately after boot my uptime was reported as 14664 days, 13 hours. I
didn't do a cat of either /proc/uptime or /proc/stat. If the bug hits
again, I'll do so and post the results.
--
Alex Goddard
[email protected]
Clemens Schwaighofer wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi,
>
> I a got a test vmware running with a 2.5.70 and I have sligh "overflow"
> with my uptime.
>
> gentoo root # uptime
> 22:29:47 up 14667 days, 19:08, 3 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
Uptime currently reports a conversion of jiffies which is currently
jacked up to a few seconds short of 32 bits worth of jiffies (for
testing purposes).
I have a patch pending with Andrew to convert uptime to use the POSIX
monotonic clock which a) will start at 0 at boot time and b) will
account for NTP clock adjustments. Should give an uptime real close
to the best of watches (or even better) :)
-g
>
> I think thats a bit too much ;)
>
> Linux gentoo.tequila.intern 2.5.80 #1 Tue May 27 14:42:51 JST 2003 i686
> Intel(R) Penitum(R) 4 CPU 1.60GHz GenuineIntel GNU/Linux
> running on a
> Gentoo System (unstable tree)
>
> - --
> Clemens Schwaighofer - IT Engineer & System Administration
> ==========================================================
> Tequila Japan, 6-17-2 Ginza Chuo-ku, Tokyo 104-8167, JAPAN
> Tel: +81-(0)3-3545-7703 Fax: +81-(0)3-3545-7343
> http://www.tequila.jp
> ==========================================================
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQE+6ZA9jBz/yQjBxz8RAgnJAJ4yZTZJuP5QJOZv3Lc9Awnr4sblpQCeOHaD
> fgjlR74Svry26Jh+1oBjt6g=
> =6rUw
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> -
> 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/
>
--
George Anzinger [email protected]
High-res-timers: http://sourceforge.net/projects/high-res-timers/
Preemption patch: http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/rml
On Fri, 2003-06-13 at 13:34, george anzinger wrote:
> Clemens Schwaighofer wrote:
> > I a got a test vmware running with a 2.5.70 and I have sligh "overflow"
> > with my uptime.
> >
> > gentoo root # uptime
> > 22:29:47 up 14667 days, 19:08, 3 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
>
> Uptime currently reports a conversion of jiffies which is currently
> jacked up to a few seconds short of 32 bits worth of jiffies (for
> testing purposes).
Any access to jiffies should be subtracting INITIAL_JIFFIES, so uptime
should still work correctly. I've been unable to reproduce this problem,
so if anyone else sees it I'd love to get more info.
> I have a patch pending with Andrew to convert uptime to use the POSIX
> monotonic clock which a) will start at 0 at boot time and b) will
> account for NTP clock adjustments. Should give an uptime real close
> to the best of watches (or even better) :)
Sounds interesting.
-john
On Fri, 13 Jun 2003, george anzinger wrote:
> Clemens Schwaighofer wrote:
> > 22:29:47 up 14667 days, 19:08, 3 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
>
> Uptime currently reports a conversion of jiffies which is currently
> jacked up to a few seconds short of 32 bits worth of jiffies (for
> testing purposes).
>
That would explain being off by 49 days, 17 hours (or 497 days if
HZ=100).
However, the two reported cases are roughly 295 as much, and I have no
clue about that number.
Tim
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Tim Schmielau wrote:
>>I a got a test vmware running with a 2.5.70 and I have sligh "overflow"
>>with my uptime.
>>
>>gentoo root # uptime
>> 22:29:47 up 14667 days, 19:08, 3 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
>
>
> Doesn't ring any bell yet. Can you cat /proc/uptime and /proc/stat output?
> Is this immediately after booting? Reproducable?
gentoo root # cat /proc/uptime
1267537132.92 278990.27
gentoo root # cat /proc/stat
cpu 1542550 0 3915839 27412781 392624
cpu0 1542550 0 3915839 27412781 392624
intr 333933393 332637964 7735 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 7417 0 0 16 0 622268
657988 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ctxt 15529955
btime 4083180513
processes 659768
procs_running 3
procs_blocked 0
gentoo root # uptime
16:59:20 up 14670 days, 13:39, 3 users, load average: 1.22, 1.04, 0.49
I will reboot the box now and see if it happens again. but as I read in
other postings to this thread it seams to happen again.
thought I got anohter mail, from David Schwartz who claims that this is
because <quote> This is due to a known bug in the Penitum(R) processor,
which Linux has never claimed to support. </quote>
- --
Clemens Schwaighofer - IT Engineer & System Administration
==========================================================
Tequila Japan, 6-17-2 Ginza Chuo-ku, Tokyo 104-8167, JAPAN
Tel: +81-(0)3-3545-7703 Fax: +81-(0)3-3545-7343
http://www.tequila.jp
==========================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQE+7RLyjBz/yQjBxz8RAtLYAJ4rFrLGtCT7UcX3m+oHJSAssJOf9gCfflW7
b0odmjhcJ7AyZeFMnTwjbag=
=B6J3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
hi,
i have read the thread "uptime wrong in 2.5.70", but it did not occur to
me or i've just not noticed. now i habve 2.5.72 on an Alpha machine, and
my uptime is wrong too:
evil@lila:~$ uptime
20:39:43 up 12223 days, 18:39, 2 users, load average: 1.00, 1.15, 1.13
evil@lila:~$
evil@lila:~$ date
Fri Jun 20 20:39:47 CEST 2003
evil@lila:~$
someone asked for /proc/stat and /proc/uptime, so i'll put it in here too:
evil@lila:~$ cat /proc/uptime
1056134456.56 119.85
evil@lila:~$
evil@lila:~$ cat /proc/stat
cpu 19532572 231368852 6161047 86525 35469
cpu0 19532572 231368852 6161047 86525 35469
intr 268431707 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 257197217 0 0 264591 3 0 0 10969878
ctxt 5528866
btime 1055883310
processes 251305
procs_running 2
procs_blocked 0
evil@lila:~$
i'll check if it's reproduceable.
Thanks,
Christian.
Christian Kujau schrieb:
> i'll check if it's reproduceable.
>
yes, it is.