From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 6 17:33:31 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55D47106566B for ; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 17:33:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from alexkozlov0@gmail.com) Received: from mail-bw0-f54.google.com (mail-bw0-f54.google.com [209.85.214.54]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D48A08FC0A for ; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 17:33:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: by bkat8 with SMTP id t8so7160773bka.13 for ; Tue, 06 Sep 2011 10:33:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:date:from:to:subject:message-id:mime-version:content-type :content-disposition; bh=JcHMnr2JAmXiFG99FX4Kv6asapnUVBIG3t3I209qxnQ=; b=u1tU0My60TQr4nafZ4bmvy6AsZR4GNlGoGJnlKddq4gnwqLIU9A6crgUdfLD8Bw8sC VM90zGmVwKlD0i1jBYIWUur4nUgF84jjfj6RE2vgiAIQ8ILxMtKsaUR7eJtGgV5REIPh OXByMHtLL94gvkCarj/ZWAjvG57p7KLtcE3f8= Received: by 10.204.136.69 with SMTP id q5mr3271562bkt.250.1315330409695; Tue, 06 Sep 2011 10:33:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ravenloft.kiev.ua (ravenloft.kiev.ua [94.244.131.95]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id b17sm1147440bkd.8.2011.09.06.10.33.27 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 06 Sep 2011 10:33:28 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Alex Kozlov Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 20:32:55 +0300 From: Alex Kozlov To: Poul-Henning Kamp , freebsd-current@freebsd.org, spam@rm-rf.kiev.ua Message-ID: <20110906173255.GA96949@ravenloft.kiev.ua> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Cc: Subject: Re: Unusually high LA without any load at FreeBSD9-BETA2 X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2011 17:33:31 -0000 On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 05:22:02PM +0000, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <4E66547D.2030907@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. -- Adios