X-Spam-Check-By:	sourceware.org
Date:	Sat, 10 Dec 2005 17:50:43 -0500 (EST)
From:	Steve Thompson <smt AT vgersoft DOT com>
Reply-To:	smt AT vgersoft DOT com
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: 'uptime' command producing incorrect uptime
In-Reply-To:	<439B555A.80803@ineedhosting.net>
Message-ID:	<Pine.LNX.4.58.0512101742440.16549@dahlia.vgersoft.com>
References:	<439B555A DOT 80803 AT ineedhosting DOT net>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Unsubscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

On Sat, 10 Dec 2005, Jack wrote:

> It appears to me that the uptime command is not producing the correct
> uptime and, in fact, is running twice as fast as it should be.
> [...]

I've noticed a similar effect recently, and looked in the sources. If you
take a look at the algorithm used by cygwin (line 467 et seq of
fhandler_proc.cc in the 20051123 snapshot), you'll see that it can be
wrong for multiprocessor hosts (the sum of KernelTime and UserTime is too
large by a factor equal to the number of processors). It also appears to
be wrong for uniprocessor hosts that have been up for more than 49.7 days
because of the 32-bit value returned by GetTickCount(); my own system
reported an uptime of 16 days after being up for 66 days.

Steve

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

- Raw text -