Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 11:41:55 -0700 From: Jason Nordwick <nordwick@scam.xcf.berkeley.edu> To: sbabkin@dcn.att.com Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Load avg 0.33 and 99.2% idle... Message-ID: <356C5E73.F885CBE4@scam.xcf.berkeley.edu> References: <C50B6FBA632FD111AF0F0000C0AD71EEFF8AED@dcn71.dcn.att.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
sbabkin@dcn.att.com wrote: > > It sounds weird to me. The program doing select() sleeps like > any others and do not reside in the run queue. But, on the > other hand, the load computations are based on sampling on > timer interrupts, so if some program is activated on time > intervals, like select() with timeout, the timer interrupt > will encounter longer run queue because itself had woken up > these processes and placed them into the run queue right > before computing the load. I think this explanation is > closer to reality. > > That raises an interesting issue: should the > load computation use the average of run queue length before > and after waking up the time-awaiting processes ? > > -Serge > Doesn't the soft (hard?) clock (still dont really know the difference well) operate on a random jitter to reduce this problem? Or does that only reduce the ability of a clock driven program to hog the CPU, by not getting charged for its time? Jay -- 4.4 > 95 http://www.xcf.berkeley.edu To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?356C5E73.F885CBE4>