Bug 18673

Summary: Procinfo miscalculates uptime
Product: [Retired] Red Hat Linux Reporter: Jamie Manley <jamie>
Component: procinfoAssignee: Bernhard Rosenkraenzer <bero>
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE QA Contact: Aaron Brown <abrown>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: 7.0   
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: i386   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2000-10-16 11:48:09 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Jamie Manley 2000-10-09 05:11:31 UTC 
Both machines of mine that have been upgraded to RH7.0 show the wrong value
for uptime and idle time when queried via procinfo.  Same kernel (which
reported correct values under 6.2) is running.  This is from my NAT proxy
machine:

Bootup: Sat Sep 30 02:34:55 2000    Load average: 0.00 0.00 0.00 1/23 21453

user  :       0:19:53.88   0.2%  page in :  1060184  disk 1:    49267r   28443w
nice  :       0:00:00.00   0.0%  page out:   125512
system:       0:03:46.75   0.0%  swap in :     2358  disk 3:   265554r   16347w
idle  :   3d 19:49:08.00  99.8%  swap out:     1239
uptime:   3d 20:12:48.62         context :  1566712

AT motherboard/case, no APM configured in the kernel, apmd installed but
not running, all power management off in the BIOS.
Comment 1 Jamie Manley 2000-10-11 09:23:42 UTC 
Forgot to mention that both cases, including the one quoted above are with
unpatched 2.2.17 kernels.
Comment 2 Bernhard Rosenkraenzer 2000-10-16 11:48:06 UTC 
Verified; fixing.
Comment 3 Bernhard Rosenkraenzer 2000-10-16 12:08:06 UTC 
It's caused by a change in the compiler.
Looks like procinfo code has always relied on a compiler bug. ;)
Fixed in 17-9.
Comment 4 Bernhard Rosenkraenzer 2000-10-30 10:17:18 UTC 
*** Bug 20017 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 5 Ed McKenzie 2000-11-04 19:16:16 UTC 
*** Bug 20338 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***