From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed May 27 13:21:52 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA19860 for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Wed, 27 May 1998 13:21:52 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from aaka.3skel.com (aaka.3skel.com [207.240.212.3]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA19740 for ; Wed, 27 May 1998 13:20:31 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from danj@3skel.com) Received: from fnur.3skel.com (fnur.3skel.com [192.168.0.8]) by aaka.3skel.com (8.8.5/8.8.2) with ESMTP id QAA27143; Wed, 27 May 1998 16:20:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (danj@localhost) by fnur.3skel.com (8.8.8/8.8.2) with SMTP id QAA07727; Wed, 27 May 1998 16:20:28 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 16:20:28 -0400 (EDT) From: Dan Janowski To: Jason Nordwick cc: sbabkin@dcn.att.com, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Load avg 0.33 and 99.2% idle... In-Reply-To: <356C5E73.F885CBE4@scam.xcf.berkeley.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG The odd part is that I hadn't noticed this before. I just upgraded to 2.2.6 from 2.2.1. Maybe it's X or some other daemon that is running differently. Dan On Wed, 27 May 1998, Jason Nordwick wrote: > 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? > > -- danj@3skel.com Dan Janowski Triskelion Systems, Inc. Bronx, NY To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message