|Summary:||Wrong priority for artsd in top|
|Product:||[Retired] Red Hat Linux||Reporter:||Alexander Popov <s_popov>|
|Component:||procps||Assignee:||Daniel Walsh <dwalsh>|
|Status:||CLOSED RAWHIDE||QA Contact:||Brian Brock <bbrock>|
|Fixed In Version:||Doc Type:||Bug Fix|
|Doc Text:||Story Points:||---|
|Last Closed:||2004-02-05 16:35:40 UTC||Type:||---|
|oVirt Team:||---||RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:|
Description Alexander Popov 2003-04-15 08:09:43 UTC
From Bugzilla Helper: User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20030225 Description of problem: The PRI section in top shows wrong priority for artsd: 18446744073709551565. I'm not sure if the problem is in the kernel, artsd or psutils. These are the versions of these packages on my system: arts-1.1-7 kernel-2.4.20-9 psutils-1.17-19 Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): arts-1.1-7 How reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. Simply run top and see the PRI column for artsd 2. 3. Additional info:
Comment 1 Michael Lee Yohe 2003-04-15 14:40:54 UTC
The package which contains the "top" command is procps. $ rpm -qf `which top` procps-2.0.11-6 "psutils" is a package that contains utilities for PostScript documents. Have you restarted the daemon and noticed the behavior is consistent (the value is the same no matter what)? Did you upgrade to 9 or did you do a fresh install?
Comment 2 Alexander Popov 2003-04-15 15:30:51 UTC
Sorry about psutils - my mistake ("dummy mode on" I guess)... procps is 2.0.11-6 but I doubt the problem is in it... I killed the daemon and started it manually - the priority was OK: 15 The situation repeats when I start X via "startx" though. I made a clear install of 9 (didn't upgrade)... Regards, Sasho
Comment 3 Ngo Than 2003-10-23 10:03:28 UTC
it looks like a bug in procps and probably was fixed in 2.0.11-7 or newer.
Comment 4 Alexander Larsson 2003-10-24 09:04:03 UTC
Yes, this is the negative prio thing. It should be fixed in rawhide.
Comment 5 Alexander Popov 2003-10-24 10:24:51 UTC
Thank you guys... Should I change the status of this bug to resolve ( RAWHIDE )?
Comment 6 Alexander Larsson 2003-10-24 10:49:02 UTC
if you've verified it fixed, yes.