lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Oct]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: Meaningless load?
From
Date

On 11.10.2012, at 10:13, Mike Galbraith wrote:

>> On 11.10.2012, at 06:02, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>>
>>> Makes perfect sense to me. Work _is_ stack this high. We don't and
>>> can't know whether the mountain is made of popcorn balls or
>> boulders.
>>
>> That's the point. Afaik the D state never represents 'work'. These
>> processes are waiting for something.
>
> Yeah, the whole pile is waiting, but they're not idle. There are N
> tasks pointed at CPUs.
>>
>> Let's say we have 10,000 processes in the D state (and thus a load of
>> ~10,000) doing nothing. What should the load tell me? The machine is
>> under fire? There is nothing to do? There might be something to do but
>> the machine doesn't know?
>
> They are doing something, just not at the particular instant you see
> them in D state. D state pushing load through the roof tells you that
> you have a bottleneck. Whether the bottleneck is a bit of spinning rust
> or insufficient NR_CPUS doesn't matter much, both are bottlenecks.

Your explanation sounds correct to me but I think in my case, there are only 2-3 process
waiting for spinning rust (or rather nfs) and the other processes are all in a heavy lock
contention in the VFS layer. So a load of 10,000 is helpful to indicate that there is a (software)
bottleneck but if I want to see the 'real (work)load' on this machine it isn't really helpful to show
a load of 10,000 instead of three or whatever. It's a question of interpretation.

Simon




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-10-11 16:01    [W:0.035 / U:0.096 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site