Bug 88874

Summary: Wrong priority for artsd in top
Product: [Retired] Red Hat Linux Reporter: Alexander Popov <s_popov>
Component: procpsAssignee: Daniel Walsh <dwalsh>
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE QA Contact: Brian Brock <bbrock>
Severity: low Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: 9CC: michael
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: athlon   
OS: Linux   
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2004-02-05 16:35:40 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---

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:

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):

How reproducible:

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Simply run top and see the PRI column for artsd

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`

"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)...


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.