* Re: Division of Load Average
2008-10-02 3:43 ` Arjan van de Ven
@ 2008-10-01 17:56 ` sena seneviratne
2008-10-02 8:24 ` Balbir Singh
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: sena seneviratne @ 2008-10-01 17:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Arjan van de Ven; +Cc: linux-kernel, balbir
Arjan and Balbir,
Yes as discussed and agreed upon with Nagar and balbir 4 years ago this is
how they are listed
Loadavg(1), Loadavg(5), Loadavg(15)
rootloadavg
uid_1 CPUload_1 DiskLoad_1
uid_2 CPUload_2 DiskLoad_2
uid_3 CPUload_3 DiskLoad_3
-----------------------------------------------
uid_n CPUload_n DiskLoad_n
Thanks
Sena Seneviratne
At 08:43 PM 10/1/2008 -0700, you wrote:
>On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 06:58:45 -0400
>auntvini@cel.usyd.edu.au wrote:
>
> > My self and my superviosr Dr David Levy have been working on
> > introduction of new kernel code to correct the inherent problem of
> > calculating load avarage by the current kernel. We have posted many
> > e-mails in this regard since 2003 and kernel has been updated under
> > the supervision of Rusty Russel.
> >
> > Also we had interactions with IBM group(balbir@in.ibm.com) who was
> > engaged in delayed stat calculations.
> >
> > We emphasise the following facts
> > (1) seperation of Disk IO load from CPU load
> >
> > This comes as a correction to the existing kernel as the calculation
> > of the existing kernel load average is based on the arithmatic
> > addition of Disk IO and CPU loads
>
>while you can argue if including disk makes sense or not, it's 20+
>years of tradition on Linux, and more on Unix.
>
>So.. whatever you do (and I think there's some sense in splitting
>things out).. please only *add* stats, don't replace the existing ones.
>
>--
>Arjan van de Ven Intel Open Source Technology Centre
>For development, discussion and tips for power savings,
>visit http://www.lesswatts.org
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: Division of Load Average
2008-10-02 10:58 Division of Load Average auntvini
@ 2008-10-02 3:43 ` Arjan van de Ven
2008-10-01 17:56 ` sena seneviratne
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Arjan van de Ven @ 2008-10-02 3:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: auntvini; +Cc: linux-kernel
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 06:58:45 -0400
auntvini@cel.usyd.edu.au wrote:
> My self and my superviosr Dr David Levy have been working on
> introduction of new kernel code to correct the inherent problem of
> calculating load avarage by the current kernel. We have posted many
> e-mails in this regard since 2003 and kernel has been updated under
> the supervision of Rusty Russel.
>
> Also we had interactions with IBM group(balbir@in.ibm.com) who was
> engaged in delayed stat calculations.
>
> We emphasise the following facts
> (1) seperation of Disk IO load from CPU load
>
> This comes as a correction to the existing kernel as the calculation
> of the existing kernel load average is based on the arithmatic
> addition of Disk IO and CPU loads
while you can argue if including disk makes sense or not, it's 20+
years of tradition on Linux, and more on Unix.
So.. whatever you do (and I think there's some sense in splitting
things out).. please only *add* stats, don't replace the existing ones.
--
Arjan van de Ven Intel Open Source Technology Centre
For development, discussion and tips for power savings,
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: Division of Load Average
2008-10-01 17:56 ` sena seneviratne
@ 2008-10-02 8:24 ` Balbir Singh
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Balbir Singh @ 2008-10-02 8:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: sena seneviratne; +Cc: Arjan van de Ven, linux-kernel, balbir
sena seneviratne wrote:
> Arjan and Balbir,
>
> Yes as discussed and agreed upon with Nagar and balbir 4 years ago this
> is how they are listed
>
> Loadavg(1), Loadavg(5), Loadavg(15)
> rootloadavg
> uid_1 CPUload_1 DiskLoad_1
> uid_2 CPUload_2 DiskLoad_2
> uid_3 CPUload_3 DiskLoad_3
>
> -----------------------------------------------
>
> uid_n CPUload_n DiskLoad_n
>
Sorry, I think I am completely out of context w.r.t. discussion. Any hints/URLs
to the old discussion would be nice.
--
Balbir
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Division of Load Average
@ 2008-10-02 10:58 auntvini
2008-10-02 3:43 ` Arjan van de Ven
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: auntvini @ 2008-10-02 10:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
My self and my superviosr Dr David Levy have been working on introduction of new kernel code to correct the inherent problem of calculating load avarage by the current kernel. We have posted many e-mails in this regard since 2003 and kernel has been updated under the supervision of Rusty Russel.
Also we had interactions with IBM group(balbir@in.ibm.com) who was engaged in delayed stat calculations.
We emphasise the following facts
(1) seperation of Disk IO load from CPU load
This comes as a correction to the existing kernel as the calculation of the existing kernel load average is based on the arithmatic addition of Disk IO and CPU loads
(2) In addition to that calculation of load averages for each current user
This is an extention we would like to suggest. For Grid and Cluster computing service providers can use the collection of user load profiles (CPU and Disk IO) for future predictions.
Thanks
Sena Seneviratne
Computer Engineering Lab
Sydney University
Australia
--
This message was sent on behalf of auntvini@cel.usyd.edu.au at openSubscriber.com
http://www.opensubscriber.com/messages/linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org/topic.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2008-10-02 8:27 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2008-10-02 10:58 Division of Load Average auntvini
2008-10-02 3:43 ` Arjan van de Ven
2008-10-01 17:56 ` sena seneviratne
2008-10-02 8:24 ` Balbir Singh
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox