From: Haakon Riiser <hakonrk@ulrik.uio.no>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Busy-wait delay in qmail 1.03 after upgrading to Linux 2.6
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 00:46:11 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040113234611.GA558@s.chello.no> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040113232624.GA302@s.chello.no>
> Output from time:
>
> real 0m0.309s
> user 0m0.011s
> sys 0m0.004s
Just wanted to comment on my own data, since I just noticed it myself:
The output from time indicates that the system is _not_ using CPU
while delaying, so you might wonder why I said it did. The reason
is that I'm using an AfterStep applet (ascpu) to monitor CPU usage,
and it appeared to work fine in 2.6. Now, I see that there are
differences: For example, another problem I encountered while
upgrading to 2.6 was that disk intensive jobs, such as updating
the slocate database, made ascpu report 100% CPU usage. I just
ran top (procps 2.0.16) beside it, and it reported approximately
10% CPU usage, which is no more than 2.4 used.
I don't know how ascpu measures CPU usage, but it's interesting
that it appears to work fine for the most part, while giving
_completely_ different results from all other programs (e.g.,
time, top, ps) in the write-delay case, and other disk related
activities.
(For the record, I've never seen ascpu's results differ from
top's under Linux 2.4.x.)
--
Haakon
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-01-13 23:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-01-13 21:09 Busy-wait delay in qmail 1.03 after upgrading to Linux 2.6 Haakon Riiser
2004-01-13 21:51 ` Andrew Morton
2004-01-13 23:26 ` Haakon Riiser
2004-01-13 23:43 ` Andrew Morton
2004-01-14 0:07 ` Haakon Riiser
2004-01-14 11:29 ` Haakon Riiser
2004-01-20 0:46 ` Haakon Riiser
2004-01-13 23:46 ` Haakon Riiser [this message]
2004-01-14 0:06 ` Andrew Morton
2004-01-14 10:27 ` Giuliano Pochini
2004-01-14 11:20 ` Haakon Riiser
2004-01-15 0:12 ` Haakon Riiser
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2004-01-20 5:51 Peter Maas
[not found] <20040120021353.39e9155e.akpm@osdl.org>
2004-01-20 18:33 ` Fw: " Manfred Spraul
2004-01-20 19:22 ` Haakon Riiser
2004-01-20 19:45 ` Mike Fedyk
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=20040113234611.GA558@s.chello.no \
--to=hakonrk@ulrik.uio.no \
--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