Re: ULE scheduling oddity

On Jul 15, 2008, at 11:35 AM, Steve Kargl wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 01:11:05PM -0500, Stephen Montgomery-Smith  
> wrote:
>> Steve Kargl wrote:
>>>
>>> PID USERNAME    THR PRI NICE   SIZE    RES STATE  C   TIME   WCPU  
>>> COMMAND
>>> 3836 kargl         1 118    0   577M   572M CPU7   7   6:37  
>>> 100.00% kzk90
>>> 3839 kargl         1 118    0   577M   572M CPU2   2   6:36  
>>> 100.00% kzk90
>>> 3849 kargl         1 118    0   577M   572M CPU3   3   6:33  
>>> 100.00% kzk90
>>> 3852 kargl         1 118    0   577M   572M CPU0   0   6:25  
>>> 100.00% kzk90
>>> 3864 kargl         1 118    0   577M   572M RUN    1   6:24  
>>> 100.00% kzk90
>>> 3858 kargl         1 112    0   577M   572M RUN    5   4:10 78.47%  
>>> kzk90
>>> 3855 kargl         1 110    0   577M   572M CPU5   5   4:29 67.97%  
>>> kzk90
>>> 3842 kargl         1 110    0   577M   572M CPU4   4   4:24 66.70%  
>>> kzk90
>>> 3846 kargl         1 107    0   577M   572M RUN    6   3:22 53.96%  
>>> kzk90
>>> 3861 kargl         1 107    0   577M   572M CPU6   6   3:15 53.37%  
>>> kzk90
>>
>> My personal experience is that WCPU is not that accurate a measure of
>> what is really going on.  It is some kind of weighted CPU time, and
>> according to the man page you have to wait for up to a minute to  
>> get an
>> accurate sense.
>
> WCPU may indeed be misleading, but there appears to be a problem
> with migrating a process to an otherwise idle cpu.  If I kill
> the process on CPU0 and one of the processes on CPU6, I then see
>
> last pid: 65293;  load averages:  8.00,  8.33,  8.91  up  
> 19+21:43:26  11:14:21
> 39 processes:  9 running, 30 sleeping
> CPU: 87.5% user,  0.0% nice,  0.0% system,  0.0% interrupt, 12.5% idle
> Mem: 4569M Active, 64M Inact, 163M Wired, 304K Cache, 202M Buf, 26G  
> Free
> Swap: 4096M Total, 4096M Free
>
>  PID USERNAME    THR PRI NICE   SIZE    RES STATE  C   TIME   WCPU  
> COMMAND
> 65035 kargl         1 118    0   577M   572M CPU7   7  62:15 100.00%  
> kzk90
> 65038 kargl         1 118    0   577M   572M CPU3   3  62:11 100.00%  
> kzk90
> 65023 kargl         1 118    0   577M   572M CPU1   1  58:44 100.00%  
> kzk90
> 65032 kargl         1 118    0   577M   572M CPU6   6  55:36 100.00%  
> kzk90
> 65026 kargl         1 118    0   577M   572M CPU2   2  53:32 100.00%  
> kzk90
> 65029 kargl         1 112    0   577M   572M CPU5   5  42:16 73.29%  
> kzk90
> 65041 kargl         1 110    0   577M   572M RUN    5  41:37 66.80%  
> kzk90
> 65020 kargl         1 110    0   577M   572M CPU4   4  43:45 64.36%  
> kzk90
>
> The 3 processes with less than 100% WCPU bounce between CPU4 and CPU5.
> Nothing is ever scheduled for CPU0.
>
>> What I tend to do is to look at the TIME's, and see how fast they  
>> tick.
>>
>> Also, you can run the programs thus:
>>
>> time ./kargl
>>
>> and the times produced at the end tend to be a rather good measure of
>> actual percentage cpu time.  Although I can see that in your  
>> situation
>> that this might be tricky to use.
>
> I'd expect the output from time to be nearly identical for
> each process in that each is running with the exact same
> input parameters.
>
>> There is also a -C option with top that gives "raw CPU" time.  I have
>> never tried it, so I cannot speak to how good it really is.
>
> -C doesn't appear to give anything different.

FWIW it appears that OSX has migrated away from traditional [n?]top  
available in FreeBSD and they no longer include WCPU.

Maybe there were some other improvements made, because it consistently  
appears to be reporting the correct CPU usage percentage...

Cheers,
-Garrett