From: Robert Love <rml@tech9.net>
To: David Lang <dlang@diginsite.com>
Cc: William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com>,
Till Immanuel Patzschke <tip@inw.de>,
lse-tech <lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: 15000+ processes -- poor performance ?!
Date: 18 Dec 2002 20:42:58 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1040262178.855.106.camel@phantasy> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0212181717510.7848-100000@dlang.diginsite.com>
On Wed, 2002-12-18 at 20:20, David Lang wrote:
> Ok, I wasn't sure of the cause, but I've seen this as far back as 2.2 I
> had a machine trying to run 2000 processes under 2.2 and 2.4.0 (after
> upping the 2.2 kernel limit) and top would cost me ~40% throughput on the
> machine (while claiming it was useing ~5% of the CPU)
Yah a lot of it is like William is saying... you just do not want to
read multiple files for each process in /proc when you have a kajillion
processes, and that is what top does. Over and over.
Work has gone into 2.5 to make this a lot better.. If you use threads
with NPTL in 2.5, a lot of this is resolved, since the sub-threads will
not show up in as /proc/#/ entries.
Robert Love
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-12-19 1:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-12-19 0:46 15000+ processes -- poor performance ?! Till Immanuel Patzschke
2002-12-19 0:47 ` [Lse-tech] " Martin J. Bligh
2002-12-19 0:53 ` Till Immanuel Patzschke
2002-12-19 1:15 ` William Lee Irwin III
2002-12-19 1:12 ` David Lang
2002-12-19 1:25 ` William Lee Irwin III
2002-12-19 1:20 ` David Lang
2002-12-19 1:36 ` William Lee Irwin III
2002-12-19 1:42 ` Robert Love [this message]
2002-12-19 1:44 ` David Lang
2002-12-19 2:05 ` [Lse-tech] " William Lee Irwin III
2002-12-19 15:05 ` Denis Vlasenko
2002-12-19 10:27 ` William Lee Irwin III
2002-12-19 10:37 ` Alex Tomas
2002-12-19 10:55 ` William Lee Irwin III
2002-12-19 15:24 ` Martin J. Bligh
2002-12-19 15:15 ` Denis Vlasenko
2002-12-19 1:24 ` William Lee Irwin III
2002-12-19 0:59 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-12-19 1:11 ` William Lee Irwin III
2002-12-19 14:59 ` Denis Vlasenko
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-12-19 1:04 Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky
2002-12-19 1:13 ` Robert Love
2002-12-19 2:31 ` Alan Cox
2002-12-19 1:58 ` Rik van Riel
2002-12-19 2:01 ` William Lee Irwin III
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1040262178.855.106.camel@phantasy \
--to=rml@tech9.net \
--cc=dlang@diginsite.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=tip@inw.de \
--cc=wli@holomorphy.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox