Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 08:44:10 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 08:44:09 -0400 Received: from borg.org ([208.218.135.231]:45970 "HELO borg.org") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 08:44:07 -0400 Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 08:44:04 -0400 From: Kent Borg To: Herbert Xu Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Why HZ on i386 is 100 ? Message-ID: <20020417084404.A9382@borg.org> In-Reply-To: <20020416222156.GB20464@turbolinux.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 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/