From: Martin Steigerwald <martin@lichtvoll.de>
To: Ulrich Windl <Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Lower bound 0.05 on 15-Minute load?
Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2015 11:26:48 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1479160.a5Vb4cJSSF@merkaba> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <55951765020000A10001AFA9@gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de>
On Thursday 02 July 2015 10:50:13 Ulrich Windl wrote:
> Hi!
Hi Ulrich,
> I'm not subscribed, so plese CC: me for your replies.
>
> When graphing the CPU load, I noticed that the 15-minute average never
> drops below 0.05, while the 5-minute load and the 1-minute load does
> (Kernel 3.0.101-0.47.52-xen of SLES11 on x86_64).
Load average is *NOT* the CPU load although this is a very common
misconception.
Load average indicates the amount of processes that are waiting to be
scheduled / running (which is CPU saturation) *and* those that are waiting
uninterruptable. You can have a high load average without much CPU
utilizitation, for example by running 20 find processes on a /home on NFS.
A high load can be CPU-bound but it doesn't need to be.
So a high load only can indicate that things are running more slowly, but
not why, or well the why can be at least two things and does not need to be
CPU.
Also the load is normalized to CPU cores.
> Ist that a known bug? Interactive call of "uptime" seems to confirm my
> suspect: windl> uptime
> 10:41am up 23 days 18:49, 1 user, load average: 0.08, 0.05, 0.05
> windl> uptime
> 10:48am up 23 days 18:56, 1 user, load average: 0.00, 0.04, 0.05
> windl> cat /proc/loadavg
> 0.00 0.04 0.05 1/108 9704
>
> I'll attach a sample graph.
Why should it be? As you can see in the graph you have higher spikes with 1-
minute average. As its just a average about one minute it more easily drops
below 0,05. But the 5 minute and 15 minute avergage need more time to drop
lower, so for it to become lower, you need longer times without spikes in
load average.
So its natural you get "flatter" curves with higher average. Average easily
hide things like spikes.
Thanks,
--
Martin
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-07-02 9:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-07-02 8:50 Lower bound 0.05 on 15-Minute load? Ulrich Windl
2015-07-02 9:26 ` Martin Steigerwald [this message]
2015-07-03 6:12 ` Antw: " Ulrich Windl
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=1479160.a5Vb4cJSSF@merkaba \
--to=martin@lichtvoll.de \
--cc=Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/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