Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1765858AbXJRQOE (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Oct 2007 12:14:04 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756340AbXJRQNz (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Oct 2007 12:13:55 -0400 Received: from e6.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.146]:37385 "EHLO e6.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751576AbXJRQNy (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Oct 2007 12:13:54 -0400 Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 21:55:13 +0530 From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri To: torvalds@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, Ingo Molnar Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, pbadari@us.ibm.com, dhaval@linux.vnet.ibm.com Subject: Buggy idle time reported in /proc/uptime for SMP systems? Message-ID: <20071018162513.GA19214@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reply-To: vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 627 Lines: 16 The idle time reported in /proc/uptime (2nd field) seems to be the idle time of only CPU0. Shouldn't it reflect the total idle time on a SMP system? Do folks agree that it is a bug that needs to be fixed? If so, will send a patch ... Fyi, I see patches submitted to fix this way back in 2001 [http://lkml.org/lkml/2001/3/17/55], but don't think they made in .. -- Regards, vatsa - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/