Re: [ANNOUNCE] procps 3.0.4

[Albert D. Cahalan]

Rik van Riel writes:
> On Sat, 19 Oct 2002, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:

>>> Can you be more specific?  What bugs do you see?
>>
>> There isn't error checking in the five_cpu_numbers function
>> to detect bad data. Not that bad data should ever happen; there
>> is a bug in the WOLK kernel.
>
> Guess why the iowait stats are initialised to 0 ? ;)
>
> We know that user, system, nice and idle are present
> in every kernel and we bail out with an error if we
> get less than 4 values for the CPU stats.

The problem is not at all related to the IO-wait addition,
and no you don't bail out with an error... procps 3 does
bail out, elsewhere, causing the mistaken belief that procps 2
runs correctly on a WOLK kernel. That's wrong; no procps runs
correctly on a WOLK kernel.

I mentioned the issue merely to avoid bogus bug reports.
I don't want WOLK kernel users claiming that procps 2 works
and procps 3 not; the truth is that neither one can work
on a WOLK kernel.

>> I could make vmstat way faster if the kernel would provide the
>> number of tasks that are running, swapped out, blocked, etc.
>
> I sent in a patch for that. I'll resend when Linus returns
> from holidays.

Great.

[e-mail] seems to have most of a patch for
the %CPU problem. (tracking the data, but not reporting it)

What about /proc/*/tty, an adopted-child flag, something for
the kapmd-idle problem, /proc/*/threads/* files, etc. ?