Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 18:00:35 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: bde@zeta.org.au (Bruce Evans) Cc: jdp@polstra.com, rb@gid.co.uk, current@FreeBSD.ORG, phk@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Spurious SIGXCPU Message-ID: <199806101800.LAA00515@usr01.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <199806100912.TAA05983@godzilla.zeta.org.au> from "Bruce Evans" at Jun 10, 98 07:12:33 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> >>Signal 24 is SIGXCPU (exceeded CPU time limit). Check your ulimit
> >>settings ("limit" if you use csh) and your login.conf setup.
> >
> ># limit
> >cputime unlimited
> >[etc]
> >
> >Checked that before showing my head above the parapet; and I did say
> >"Doesn't seem to be repeatable" :-)
>
> Apparently your process appeared to run for a negative amount of time.
> p_runtime is unsigned (64 bits), so negative runtimes are interpreted
> as huge runtimes, even huger than RLIMIT_INFINITY. This bug used to
> be avoided by using signed variables even to hold values that should
> be non-negative.
Shouldn't accounting be done using monotime?
Ie: shouldn't accounting only be subject to positive drift?
Terry Lambert
terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199806101800.LAA00515>