On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 05:22:02PM +0000, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <4E66547D.2030907_at_cran.org.uk>, Bruce Cran writes: >>On 06/09/2011 18:05, Garrett Cooper wrote: >>> What is "LA"? >>Load Average? > We should kille the load avarage as a measure for system activity, > it only has any relevance if you run heavy CPU bound processes. It may be true, but in current kernel from beginning of june I would see la about 0,01 in this situation. Note that cpu idling: dev.cpu.0.freq: 300 dev.cpu.0.freq_levels: 2200/35000 1925/30625 1650/26250 1600/23000 1400/20125 1200/15000 1050/13125 900/11250 750/9375 600/7500 450/5625 300/3750 150/1875 dev.cpu.0.cx_supported: C1/1 C2/1 C3/17 [...] 11 root 2 155 ki31 0K 32K CPU1 1 29.4H 200.00% idle I think process accounting get broken or something like this. > If the majority of your threads yield their quantum, load average > contains absolutely no information of any relevance to system > capacity. > > Try this: > > main() > for (i = 0; i < 10000; i++) > start thread { > calculate time until top of next second > sleep (until then) > } > > You'll see a monster load-avg on idle cpus. -- AdiosReceived on Tue Sep 06 2011 - 15:33:31 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:17 UTC