On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 04:55:48PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 07:24 -0700, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> > > It's pretty harmless though. The "load average" thing just means that the
> > > extra pdflush threads are twiddling thumbs waiting on some disk I/O -
> > > they'll later exit and clean themselves up. They won't be consuming
> > > significant resources.
> >
> > If they're waiting on disk I/O, they shouldn't be runnable, and thus
> > should not be counted as part of the load average, surely?
>
> yes they are, since at least a decade. "load average" != "cpu
> utilisation" by any means. It's "tasks waiting for a hardware resource
> to become available". CPU is one such resource (runnable) but disk is
> another. There are more ...
... except that any kernel < 2.6 didn't account tasks waiting for disk
IO. Load average has always been somewhat related to tasks contending
for CPU power. It's easy to say "shrug, it changed, live with it", but
at least give applications that want to be nice to the system a way to
figure out the real cpu load.
Erik
--
+-- Erik Mouw -- www.harddisk-recovery.com -- +31 70 370 12 90 --
| Lab address: Delftechpark 26, 2628 XH, Delft, The Netherlands
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
