From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: greg@kroah.com (Greg KH)
Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2006 06:41:35 +0000
Subject: [lm-sensors] TODO: "dynamic" sysfs callbacks
Message-Id: <20060903064135.GA11525@kroah.com>
List-Id: <lm-sensors.vger.kernel.org>
References: <44F1E5B6.1080105@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <44F1E5B6.1080105@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: lm-sensors@vger.kernel.org

On Sun, Sep 03, 2006 at 08:08:02AM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
> Greg KH wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 02, 2006 at 10:57:03PM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > > The bus driver msleep()s, so it's rather an uninterruptible sleep?
> > 
> > Yes it is.
> > 
> > > Not that I know what different it makes in that context.
> > 
> > When you sleep in the kernel, in an uninterruptable state, it increases
> > the load average spit out by the kernel by 1.  Now this really doesn't
> > make that much sense, as the code is sleeping and not doing anything at
> > all, but it plays havoc on tools that look at the load average of the
> > machine to see what is going on.
> > 
> > That might be why users think the driver is taking up more cpu time than
> > it really is, but it all depends on how they were measuring it.
> 
> OK, Thanks for the explanation. Isn't it possible to change the kernel
> to not count sleeping processes in the load? That'd make people happier,
> and the value more meaningful.

>From what I remember, no, it is not simple to do this.  But feel free to
poke at it, I really don't know how that code works :)

good luck,

greg k-h