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 10.10.2012, at 18:22, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> On Wed, 2012-10-10 at 17:44 +0200, Simon Klinkert wrote:
>> I'm just wondering if the 'load' is really meaningful in this
>> scenario. The machine is the whole time fully responsive and looks
>> fine to me but maybe I didn't understand correctly what the load
>> should mean. Is there any sensible interpretation of the load?
>
> I'll leave meaningful aside, but uninterruptible (D state) is part of
> how the load thing is defined, so your 500 result is correct.

Yes, the calculation of the load is correct but I still don't know how I should interpret the load…

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.

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?

Simon


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-10-11 10:01    [W:1.650 / U:0.040 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site