Strange procps behavior with 1.5.0?

Christopher Faylor
Tue Jul 8 15:14:00 GMT 2003

On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 10:11:23AM +0100, Chris January wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 09:30:13AM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> >On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 09:25:25AM +0100, Chris January wrote:
>> >>> Anyone else see strange dates when you do a 'procps auwx' under
>> >>> 1.5.0?  The latest snapshot is very close to 1.5.0, if you just want
>> >>> to use that.
>> >>>
>> >>> I'm seeing dates in the future, like Jul20 and Jul21.
>> >>
>> >>I'll take a look at this tonight.
>> >
>> >I guess this was also broken in 1.3.22 (and maybe forever?) so it's not
>> >technically a regression, but it would be nice to get it fixed.  AFAICT,
>> >the process time calculation is just using raw Windows times, which
>> >doesn't seem right.  You have to apply some factor to windows time to
>> >get UNIX time.  See
>> Any word on this, Chris?
>This is an old problem caused, IIRC, by hibernation or suspend. Basically
>start_time is defined as "The time in jiffies the process started after
>system boot." Now if you suspend or hibernate the computer, then resume, no
>'jiffies' elapse while the computer is suspended. However the procps command
>assumes they do because it has no concept of suspend or hibernate.

My computer does not hibernate or suspend, AFAIK.  I'm sure I've noticed this
on a freshly booted system.

At the very least we should be able to use the cygwin start times which do
not suffer from this problem.


More information about the Cygwin-developers mailing list