From: tmhikaru@gmail.com
To: Greg KH <gregkh@suse.de>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.35.6
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 12:32:08 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100927163208.GA4892@roll> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100927003608.GA20395@kroah.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1815 bytes --]
I'm not exactly sure what's going on here and I'd like some help
figuring out what is. For some inexplicable reason, ever since I started
using the 2.6.35.x series with the 2.6.35.3 release, my loadaverages tend to
bounce anywhere from as low to .2 to 1.5 - constantly, while the machine
seems idle. Consistently, there are no programs in D state in ps aux output,
no cpu hogging programs running in top, nothing I can see that should
explain the bizzarely high load average. *Something* is wrong beyond the
mere loadaverage numbers going crazy however, since timed runs of kernel
compiles done with my distro's kernel and 2.6.35.5 show that while there is
no *apparent* use of cpu or disk showing in vmstat while the machine is
idle, the compiles on the newer kernel are taking approximately twice as
long as before. Now, while I could try to figure out what patch started the
problem, I think it would be a better idea for me to make sure I'm looking
for the actual problem in the right place. Therefore, I know that cpu use,
disk I/O, and the kernel can drive the load average up. Of these things, cpu
use and disk I/O are trackable in top/ps output (eg, a process in D state is
waiting on the disk to do something and can't sleep.) but I don't know if
there's any easy way to determine if the kernel itself is doing something
that's driving up the load average. It's perplexing me that I can see the
loadaverage constantly bouncing about but can't seem to find any reason why
it is doing so.
If you have any tips or recommendations on what I should use to
investigate this further, please let me know. Once I have ensured to my own
satisfaction that I'm not doing something bizzare that's screwing up my
machine, I'll make a detailed bug report and start on figuring out how to
use git bisect.
Tim McGrath
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 482 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-09-27 16:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-09-27 0:36 Linux 2.6.35.6 Greg KH
2010-09-27 0:36 ` Greg KH
2010-09-27 1:00 ` Felipe Contreras
2010-09-27 1:31 ` Greg KH
2010-09-27 17:05 ` Felipe Contreras
2010-09-27 16:32 ` tmhikaru [this message]
2010-09-27 17:54 ` Greg KH
2010-09-27 19:09 ` tmhikaru
2010-09-27 19:51 ` Florian Mickler
2010-09-27 23:39 ` tmhikaru
2010-09-28 4:45 ` tmhikaru
2010-09-28 6:35 ` Florian Mickler
2010-09-28 19:03 ` tmhikaru
2010-09-29 7:29 ` Florian Mickler
2010-09-29 11:02 ` tmhikaru
2010-09-29 11:33 ` Miguel Ojeda
2010-09-29 11:52 ` Florian Mickler
2010-09-29 12:19 ` Florian Mickler
2010-09-30 1:33 ` tmhikaru
2010-09-30 5:29 ` Florian Mickler
2010-09-30 7:38 ` tmhikaru
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=20100927163208.GA4892@roll \
--to=tmhikaru@gmail.com \
--cc=gregkh@suse.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