From: Michael Buesch <mbuesch@freenet.de>
To: Willy Tarreau <willy@w.ods.org>, Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org>
Cc: linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Staircase scheduler v7.4
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 21:48:33 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200406252148.37606.mbuesch@freenet.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040625190533.GI29808@alpha.home.local>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Friday 25 June 2004 21:05, you wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 08:44:22PM +0200, Michael Buesch wrote:
>
> > I don't know what the file wchan is good for, but here is
> > it's output:
> > mb@lfs:/proc/11000> cat wchan
> > sys_wait4
>
> I bet the process is waiting for a SIGCHLD from a previously forked
> process. Con, would it be possible that under some circumstances,
> a process does not receive a SIGCHLD anymore, eg if the child runs
> shorter than a full timeslice or something like that ? In autoconf
> scripts, there are lots of very short operations that might trigger
> such unique cases.
Hm. 11000 is a bash, so it forked some process. Just wanted to note,
that there are _no_ Zombies around, but this wait()ing bash.
load grows and grows:
top - 21:40:07 up 3:55, 7 users, load average: 10.59, 10.25, 9.99
Tasks: 91 total, 12 running, 79 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
Cpu(s): 13.7% user, 10.3% system, 76.0% nice, 0.0% idle, 0.0% IO-wait
Mem: 515624k total, 466520k used, 49104k free, 43144k buffers
Swap: 976712k total, 92k used, 976620k free, 207184k cached
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ Command
2060 mb 39 19 38872 28m 2904 R 76.0 5.7 153:16.26 FahCore_78.exe
2270 mb 20 0 32428 7924 10m S 13.6 1.5 32:02.58 tvtime
2149 root 20 0 187m 41m 149m S 6.0 8.3 17:10.37 X
8936 mb 20 0 32736 20m 29m S 2.0 4.0 2:33.62 ksysguard
2238 mb 20 0 28628 15m 9m S 0.7 3.1 0:45.02 gkrellm
2315 mb 20 0 57052 11m 11m S 0.3 2.3 0:22.20 beep-media-play
8937 mb 20 0 2012 1072 1592 S 0.3 0.2 0:38.52 ksysguardd
1 root 20 0 1412 520 1252 S 0.0 0.1 0:00.30 init
2 root 39 19 0 0 0 R 0.0 0.0 0:00.00 ksoftirqd/0
3 root 10 -10 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.16 events/0
... following more processes with 0.0% CPU.
As you can see, it's impossible to generate a load of 10.59 with these
few processes running. There are two processes running full time.
FahCore_78.exe at nice 19 and tvtime never uses more then 15% CPU.
But as the load grows, the system is usable as with load 0.0.
And it really should be usable with 76.0% nice. ;) No problem here.
This really high load is not correct.
- --
Regards Michael Buesch [ http://www.tuxsoft.de.vu ]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFA3IGRFGK1OIvVOP4RAiemAKCnU2dTT9S3OWRRRKiFjYCfwVYk2gCeMVS6
nFs/eoY4VDwlQns4AK9te2c=
=NFUT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-06-25 19:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 46+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-06-25 16:40 [PATCH] Staircase scheduler v7.4 Michael Buesch
2004-06-25 16:46 ` Con Kolivas
2004-06-25 18:44 ` Michael Buesch
2004-06-25 19:05 ` Willy Tarreau
2004-06-25 19:48 ` Michael Buesch [this message]
2004-06-26 1:11 ` kernel
2004-06-26 16:33 ` Michael Buesch
2004-06-26 17:29 ` Michael Buesch
2004-06-27 9:14 ` Con Kolivas
2004-06-27 19:17 ` Felipe Alfaro Solana
2004-06-27 19:28 ` Michael Buesch
2004-06-27 21:55 ` Felipe Alfaro Solana
2004-06-28 0:15 ` Con Kolivas
2004-06-28 8:40 ` Felipe Alfaro Solana
2004-06-28 8:49 ` Nick Piggin
2004-06-28 11:53 ` Felipe Alfaro Solana
2004-06-28 12:11 ` Con Kolivas
2004-06-28 15:03 ` Oswald Buddenhagen
2004-06-28 15:19 ` Con Kolivas
2004-06-28 15:39 ` Oswald Buddenhagen
2004-06-28 17:11 ` Felipe Alfaro Solana
2004-06-29 4:36 ` Nick Piggin
2004-06-28 23:21 ` Peter Williams
2004-06-29 4:44 ` Nick Piggin
2004-06-29 6:01 ` Ed Sweetman
2004-06-29 6:55 ` Nick Piggin
2004-06-26 2:05 ` Con Kolivas
2004-06-27 10:24 ` Con Kolivas
2004-06-27 10:27 ` Con Kolivas
2004-06-27 23:50 ` Peter Williams
2004-06-27 12:00 ` Con Kolivas
2004-06-27 12:04 ` Con Kolivas
2004-06-27 12:54 ` Michael Buesch
2004-06-27 13:15 ` Con Kolivas
2004-06-25 16:46 ` Michael Buesch
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2004-06-25 14:38 Con Kolivas
2004-06-25 18:32 ` Matthias Urlichs
2004-06-26 1:28 ` Con Kolivas
2004-06-25 22:20 ` Willy Tarreau
2004-06-26 1:05 ` kernel
2004-06-26 20:04 ` Wes Janzen
2004-06-26 20:11 ` Michael Buesch
2004-06-26 21:14 ` Wes Janzen
2004-06-26 21:38 ` Prakash K. Cheemplavam
2004-06-27 9:16 ` Con Kolivas
2004-06-27 11:40 ` Grzegorz Kulewski
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=200406252148.37606.mbuesch@freenet.de \
--to=mbuesch@freenet.de \
--cc=kernel@kolivas.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=willy@w.ods.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