Oddly high load average

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
21 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Oddly high load average

Damian Gerow
The load average on my machine is inexplicably high; when idle, it sits up
between 0.6 and 0.7.  Though I'm running a snapshot from last night, I've
seen the same behaviour since I first installed a 4.4 snapshot from about
three weeks ago.  This is on a Lenovo X200.

As I understand it, load average is supposed to be roughly based on the
number of processes in the run queue.  But I don't actually have any
processes running, or blocking.  I shut down almost every non-essential
service, and I'm still seeing a load average consistantly above 0.5:

-----
# ps auxw
USER       PID %CPU %MEM   VSZ   RSS TT  STAT  STARTED       TIME COMMAND
root         1  0.0  0.0   408   360 ??  Is     2:19AM    0:00.01 /sbin/init
root     11766  0.0  0.1   552   740 ??  Is     2:19AM    0:00.00 syslogd: [priv] (syslogd)
_syslogd 22554  0.0  0.1   584   796 ??  I      2:19AM    0:00.17 syslogd -a /var/empty/dev/log
root     12786  0.0  0.1   400   768 ??  Ss     2:20AM    0:00.76 /usr/sbin/apmd -C
root      5282  0.0  0.1   560   900 ??  Ss     2:20AM    0:00.03 cron
root     28457  0.0  0.1   380   772 ??  Ss    11:34AM    0:00.01 wsmoused
root      6904  0.0  0.1   548   532 C0  Ss     2:20AM    0:00.03 -ksh (ksh)
root      6962  0.0  0.0   348   312 C0  R+/0  11:35AM    0:00.00 ps -auxw
root     13089  0.0  0.1   244   888 C1  Is+    2:20AM    0:00.00 /usr/libexec/getty std.9600 ttyC1
root     18525  0.0  0.1   380   888 C2  Is+    2:20AM    0:00.00 /usr/libexec/getty std.9600 ttyC2
root     24949  0.0  0.1   340   888 C3  Is+    2:20AM    0:00.00 /usr/libexec/getty std.9600 ttyC3
root     19012  0.0  0.1   380   892 C5  Is+    2:20AM    0:00.00 /usr/libexec/getty std.9600 ttyC5
# uptime ; vmstat 10 6 ; uptime
11:36AM  up  9:16, 1 user, load averages: 0.71, 0.72, 0.67
 procs    memory       page                    disk traps          cpu
 r b w    avm     fre  flt  re  pi  po  fr  sr sd0  int   sys   cs us sy id
 0 0 0   3460  768044   86   0   0   0   0   0   1   30   352   78  0  0 99
 0 0 0   3460  768044    6   0   0   0   0   0   0   22    13   38  0  0 100
 0 0 0   3460  768044    4   0   0   0   0   0   0   23     5   38  0  0 100
 0 0 0   3460  768044    4   0   0   0   0   0   0   23     5   39  0  0 100
 0 0 0   3460  768044    4   0   0   0   0   0   0   24     5   38  0  0 100
 0 0 0   3460  768044    4   0   0   0   0   0   0   23     5   39  0  0 100
11:36AM  up  9:17, 1 user, load averages: 0.63, 0.70, 0.67
# uptime ; iostat 10 6 ; uptime
11:37AM  up  9:18, 1 user, load averages: 0.65, 0.69, 0.67
      tty            sd0             cpu
 tin tout  KB/t t/s MB/s  us ni sy in id
   0   16 16.15   1 0.01   0  0  0  0 99
   0    0  2.00   0 0.00   0  0  0  0100
   0    0 16.00   0 0.00   0  0  0  0100
   0    0  0.00   0 0.00   0  0  0  0100
   0    0  2.67   0 0.00   0  0  0  0100
   0    0 16.00   0 0.00   0  0  0  0100
11:38AM  up  9:19, 1 user, load averages: 0.70, 0.69, 0.67
#
-----

So, what exactly is my machine doing?  Note that this doesn't really seem to
be causing me any grief: apmd is properly dropping my cpuspeed, hw.sensors
are all showing cool-running temperatures, and I'm still getting at least
seven hours of battery life, even with a wireless connection.  I just have
this oddly high load average, for seemingly no reason at all.

Here's the dmesg.  Please ignore the stuff around em0; that's me trying to
figure out the phy for the Montevino chipset:

-----
OpenBSD 4.4-current (GENERIC.MP) #11: Fri Nov  7 02:18:56 EST 2008
    [hidden email]:/usr/src/sys/arch/amd64/compile/GENERIC.MP
real mem = 999145472 (952MB)
avail mem = 969613312 (924MB)
mainbus0 at root
bios0 at mainbus0: SMBIOS rev. 2.4 @ 0xe0010 (62 entries)
bios0: vendor LENOVO version "6DET30WW (1.07 )" date 09/10/2008
bios0: LENOVO 7454CTO
acpi0 at bios0: rev 2
acpi0: tables DSDT FACP SSDT ECDT APIC MCFG HPET SLIC BOOT ASF! SSDT TCPA DMAR SSDT SSDT SSDT
acpi0: wakeup devices LID_(S3) SLPB(S3) IGBE(S4) EXP0(S4) EXP1(S4) EXP2(S4) EXP3(S4) USB0(S3) USB1(S3) USB2(S3) USB3(S3) USB4(S3) USB5(S3) EHC0(S3) EHC1(S3) HDEF(S4)
acpitimer0 at acpi0: 3579545 Hz, 24 bits
acpimadt0 at acpi0 addr 0xfee00000: PC-AT compat
cpu0 at mainbus0: apid 0 (boot processor)
cpu0: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU P8600 @ 2.40GHz, 2394.34 MHz
cpu0: FPU,VME,DE,PSE,TSC,MSR,PAE,MCE,CX8,APIC,SEP,MTRR,PGE,MCA,CMOV,PAT,PSE36,CFLUSH,DS,ACPI,MMX,FXSR,SSE,SSE2,SS,HTT,TM,SBF,SSE3,MWAIT,DS-CPL,VMX,SMX,EST,TM2,CX16,xTPR,NXE,LONG
cpu0: 3MB 64b/line 8-way L2 cache
cpu0: apic clock running at 266MHz
cpu1 at mainbus0: apid 1 (application processor)
cpu1: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU P8600 @ 2.40GHz, 2394.00 MHz
cpu1: FPU,VME,DE,PSE,TSC,MSR,PAE,MCE,CX8,APIC,SEP,MTRR,PGE,MCA,CMOV,PAT,PSE36,CFLUSH,DS,ACPI,MMX,FXSR,SSE,SSE2,SS,HTT,TM,SBF,SSE3,MWAIT,DS-CPL,VMX,SMX,EST,TM2,CX16,xTPR,NXE,LONG
cpu1: 3MB 64b/line 8-way L2 cache
ioapic0 at mainbus0 apid 1 pa 0xfec00000, version 20, 24 pins
ioapic0: misconfigured as apic 2, remapped to apid 1
acpihpet0 at acpi0: 14318179 Hz
acpiprt0 at acpi0: bus 0 (PCI0)
acpiprt1 at acpi0: bus -1 (AGP_)
acpiprt2 at acpi0: bus 2 (EXP0)
acpiprt3 at acpi0: bus 3 (EXP1)
acpiprt4 at acpi0: bus -1 (EXP2)
acpiprt5 at acpi0: bus 5 (EXP3)
acpiec0 at acpi0
acpicpu0 at acpi0: C3, C2
acpicpu1 at acpi0: C3, C2
acpitz0 at acpi0: critical temperature 127 degC
acpitz1 at acpi0: critical temperature 104 degC
acpibtn0 at acpi0: LID_
acpibtn1 at acpi0: SLPB
acpibat0 at acpi0: BAT0 model "42T4540" serial  1083 type LION oem "SANYO"
acpibat1 at acpi0: BAT1 not present
acpiac0 at acpi0: AC unit online
acpithinkpad0 at acpi0
acpidock at acpi0 not configured
acpivideo at acpi0 not configured
acpivideo at acpi0 not configured
cpu0: Enhanced SpeedStep 2400 MHz (1164 mV): speeds: 2400, 2133, 1867, 1600 MHz
pci0 at mainbus0 bus 0: configuration mode 1
pchb0 at pci0 dev 0 function 0 "Intel GM45 Host" rev 0x07
vga1 at pci0 dev 2 function 0 "Intel GM45 Video" rev 0x07
wsdisplay0 at vga1 mux 1: console (80x25, vt100 emulation)
wsdisplay0: screen 1-5 added (80x25, vt100 emulation)
inteldrm0 at vga1:couldn't find agp
"Intel GM45 Video" rev 0x07 at pci0 dev 2 function 1 not configured
"Intel GM45 HECI" rev 0x07 at pci0 dev 3 function 0 not configured
em0 at pci0 dev 25 function 0 "Intel ICH9 IGP M AMT" rev 0x03: apic 1 int 20 (irq 11)
MARK: em_read_phy_reg: Mark 1
MARK: em_read_phy_reg: mac_type: 0x13
MARK: em_read_phy_reg: phy_type: 0x0
MARK: em_read_phy_reg: Mark 2
MARK: em_read_phy_reg_ex: Mark 1
MARK: em_read_phy_reg_ex: Mark 3
MARK: em_read_phy_reg_ex: Mark 4
MARK: mdic: 0x18220000
MARK: em_read_phy_reg_ex: Mark 7
MARK: em_read_phy_reg_ex: Success!
MARK: Found high phy_id of 0x0
MARK: em_read_phy_reg: Header 1
MARK: em_read_phy_reg: mac_type: 0x13
MARK: em_read_phy_reg: phy_type: 0x0
MARK: em_read_phy_reg: Mark 2
MARK: em_read_phy_reg_ex: Mark 1
MARK: em_read_phy_reg_ex: Mark 3
MARK: em_read_phy_reg_ex: Mark 4
MARK: mdic: 0x18230000
MARK: em_read_phy_reg_ex: Mark 7
MARK: em_read_phy_reg_ex: Success!
MARK: Found low phy_id of 0x0
MARK: em_detect_gig_phy: Mark 2
MARK: phy_type: 0x0
MARK: phy_id: 0x0
MARK: phy_revision: 0x0
MARK: unknown: Mark 1
MARK: phy_id: 0x0
MARK: em_set_phy_type: Mark 1
MARK: mac_type: 0x13
MARK: phy_id: 0x0
MARK: phy_type: 0x0
em0: Hardware Initialization Failedem0: Unable to initialize the hardware
uhci0 at pci0 dev 26 function 0 "Intel 82801I USB" rev 0x03: apic 1 int 20 (irq 11)
uhci1 at pci0 dev 26 function 1 "Intel 82801I USB" rev 0x03: apic 1 int 21 (irq 11)
uhci2 at pci0 dev 26 function 2 "Intel 82801I USB" rev 0x03: apic 1 int 22 (irq 11)
ehci0 at pci0 dev 26 function 7 "Intel 82801I USB" rev 0x03: apic 1 int 23 (irq 11)
usb0 at ehci0: USB revision 2.0
uhub0 at usb0 "Intel EHCI root hub" rev 2.00/1.00 addr 1
azalia0 at pci0 dev 27 function 0 "Intel 82801I HD Audio" rev 0x03: apic 1 int 17 (irq 11)
azalia0: codecs: Conexant/0x5051
audio0 at azalia0
ppb0 at pci0 dev 28 function 0 "Intel 82801I PCIE" rev 0x03: apic 1 int 20 (irq 11)
pci1 at ppb0 bus 2
ppb1 at pci0 dev 28 function 1 "Intel 82801I PCIE" rev 0x03: apic 1 int 21 (irq 11)
pci2 at ppb1 bus 3
iwn0 at pci2 dev 0 function 0 "Intel WiFi Link 5300AGN" rev 0x00: apic 1 int 17 (irq 11), MIMO 3T3R, MoW, address 00:16:ea:e3:a1:aa
ppb2 at pci0 dev 28 function 3 "Intel 82801I PCIE" rev 0x03: apic 1 int 23 (irq 11)
pci3 at ppb2 bus 5
uhci3 at pci0 dev 29 function 0 "Intel 82801I USB" rev 0x03: apic 1 int 16 (irq 11)
uhci4 at pci0 dev 29 function 1 "Intel 82801I USB" rev 0x03: apic 1 int 17 (irq 11)
uhci5 at pci0 dev 29 function 2 "Intel 82801I USB" rev 0x03: apic 1 int 18 (irq 11)
ehci1 at pci0 dev 29 function 7 "Intel 82801I USB" rev 0x03: apic 1 int 19 (irq 11)
usb1 at ehci1: USB revision 2.0
uhub1 at usb1 "Intel EHCI root hub" rev 2.00/1.00 addr 1
ppb3 at pci0 dev 30 function 0 "Intel 82801BAM Hub-to-PCI" rev 0x93
pci4 at ppb3 bus 13
pcib0 at pci0 dev 31 function 0 "Intel 82801IEM LPC" rev 0x03
ahci0 at pci0 dev 31 function 2 "Intel 82801I AHCI" rev 0x03: apic 1 int 16 (irq 11), AHCI 1.2
scsibus0 at ahci0: 32 targets, initiator 32
sd0 at scsibus0 targ 0 lun 0: <ATA, HITACHI HTS54322, FBEZ> SCSI3 0/direct fixed
sd0: 238475MB, 512 bytes/sec, 488397168 sec total
ichiic0 at pci0 dev 31 function 3 "Intel 82801I SMBus" rev 0x03: apic 1 int 23 (irq 11)
iic0 at ichiic0
usb2 at uhci0: USB revision 1.0
uhub2 at usb2 "Intel UHCI root hub" rev 1.00/1.00 addr 1
usb3 at uhci1: USB revision 1.0
uhub3 at usb3 "Intel UHCI root hub" rev 1.00/1.00 addr 1
usb4 at uhci2: USB revision 1.0
uhub4 at usb4 "Intel UHCI root hub" rev 1.00/1.00 addr 1
usb5 at uhci3: USB revision 1.0
uhub5 at usb5 "Intel UHCI root hub" rev 1.00/1.00 addr 1
usb6 at uhci4: USB revision 1.0
uhub6 at usb6 "Intel UHCI root hub" rev 1.00/1.00 addr 1
usb7 at uhci5: USB revision 1.0
uhub7 at usb7 "Intel UHCI root hub" rev 1.00/1.00 addr 1
isa0 at pcib0
isadma0 at isa0
pckbc0 at isa0 port 0x60/5
pckbd0 at pckbc0 (kbd slot)
pckbc0: using irq 1 for kbd slot
wskbd0 at pckbd0: console keyboard, using wsdisplay0
pms0 at pckbc0 (aux slot)
pckbc0: using irq 12 for aux slot
wsmouse0 at pms0 mux 0
pcppi0 at isa0 port 0x61
midi0 at pcppi0: <PC speaker>
spkr0 at pcppi0
aps0 at isa0 port 0x1600/31
mtrr: Pentium Pro MTRR support
uvideo0 at uhub0 port 6 configuration 1 interface 0 "Chicony Electronics Co., Ltd. product 0x480c" rev 2.00/31.34 addr 2
video0 at uvideo0
ugen0 at uhub3 port 1 "AuthenTec Fingerprint Sensor" rev 2.00/17.03 addr 2
ugen1 at uhub3 port 2 "Lenovo Computer Corp ThinkPad Bluetooth with Enhanced Data Rate II" rev 2.00/3.52 addr 3
softraid0 at root
root on sd0a swap on sd0b dump on sd0b
ugen1 detached
-----

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Oddly high load average

Theo de Raadt
> The load average on my machine is inexplicably high; when idle, it sits up
> between 0.6 and 0.7.

Oh my god, the horror. Nothing is wrong with your machine at all.
However, I have a diff which will probably keep you happy.

Index: uvm_meter.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/uvm/uvm_meter.c,v
retrieving revision 1.24
diff -u -r1.24 uvm_meter.c
--- uvm_meter.c 15 Dec 2007 03:42:57 -0000 1.24
+++ uvm_meter.c 7 Nov 2008 17:11:45 -0000
@@ -138,6 +138,7 @@
  int rv, t;
  struct _ps_strings _ps = { PS_STRINGS };
  extern int uvm_km_pages_free;
+ struct loadavg gerow_averunnable;
 
  switch (name[0]) {
  case VM_SWAPENCRYPT:
@@ -156,8 +157,9 @@
 
  switch (name[0]) {
  case VM_LOADAVG:
- return (sysctl_rdstruct(oldp, oldlenp, newp, &averunnable,
-    sizeof(averunnable)));
+ bzero(&gerow_averunnable, sizeof gerow_averunnable);
+ return (sysctl_rdstruct(oldp, oldlenp, newp, &gerow_averunnable,
+    sizeof(gerow_averunnable)));
 
  case VM_METER:
  uvm_total(&vmtotals);

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Oddly high load average

Mark Zimmerman
In reply to this post by Damian Gerow
On Fri, Nov 07, 2008 at 11:51:51AM -0500, Damian Gerow wrote:
> The load average on my machine is inexplicably high; when idle, it sits up
> between 0.6 and 0.7.  Though I'm running a snapshot from last night, I've
> seen the same behaviour since I first installed a 4.4 snapshot from about
> three weeks ago.  This is on a Lenovo X200.
>
snip
>
> So, what exactly is my machine doing?  Note that this doesn't really seem to
> be causing me any grief: apmd is properly dropping my cpuspeed, hw.sensors
snip

I bet you could get your load average to drop if you forced your cpu
to run full speed even when doing nothing. I am guessing that this is
not really what you want.

-- Mark

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Oddly high load average

Damian Gerow
In reply to this post by Theo de Raadt
Theo de Raadt wrote:
: > The load average on my machine is inexplicably high; when idle, it sits up
: > between 0.6 and 0.7.
:
: Oh my god, the horror. Nothing is wrong with your machine at all.
: However, I have a diff which will probably keep you happy.

Not sure if you caught my last paragraph, but I did say that nothing was
wrong with the system at all, I'm just curious as to why the average is
high.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Oddly high load average

Damian Gerow
In reply to this post by Mark Zimmerman
Mark Zimmerman wrote:
: I bet you could get your load average to drop if you forced your cpu
: to run full speed even when doing nothing. I am guessing that this is
: not really what you want.

Not only would that not fix it, it doesn't make any sense, either.  If my
machine has no workload, increasing the available power to process said
nonexistant workload isn't going to change anything.

And let's not forget that I'm curious to find out why the load average is up
there when there's no apparent workload; dropping the load average is not
really the goal of the question.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Oddly high load average

Theo de Raadt
> Not only would that not fix it, it doesn't make any sense, either.  If my
> machine has no workload, increasing the available power to process said
> nonexistant workload isn't going to change anything.
>
> And let's not forget that I'm curious to find out why the load average is up
> there when there's no apparent workload; dropping the load average is not
> really the goal of the question.

Looks like you don't know the algorithms used to calculate the number.
But it is clearly beyond your skills to go read the source.  Such a
shame that we make source code available for people who can't learn,
and only know how to complain.

It does not work how you think it does.  We are not going to explain
it in detail to you because you would not understand.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Oddly high load average

Damian Gerow
Theo de Raadt wrote:
: Looks like you don't know the algorithms used to calculate the number.
: But it is clearly beyond your skills to go read the source.

I would assume you're referring to uvm_loadav in uvm_meter.c?  That's where
I'm looking.  I was hoping for a little English to help me with my
understanding, but maybe I'm just not clever enough.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Oddly high load average

Duncan Patton a Campbell
In reply to this post by Damian Gerow
On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 13:16:38 -0500
Damian Gerow <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Theo de Raadt wrote:
> : > The load average on my machine is inexplicably high; when idle, it sits up
> : > between 0.6 and 0.7.
> :
> : Oh my god, the horror. Nothing is wrong with your machine at all.
> : However, I have a diff which will probably keep you happy.
>
> Not sure if you caught my last paragraph, but I did say that nothing was
> wrong with the system at all, I'm just curious as to why the average is
> high.
>
>

The simple explanation is found in Mark Zimmerman's reply:
"
I bet you could get your load average to drop if you forced your cpu
to run full speed even when doing nothing. I am guessing that this is
not really what you want.
"

I guess you are assuming the load average is calculated against some
a-priori max available cpu-cycles when, from Theo's posts, it looks
like it is being calculated against current available cycles.
When your cpu is in a power-save mode it has less cycles available,
so the minimal load you place on it still consumes a higher fraction
of what is available.

Dhu

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Oddly high load average

Theo de Raadt
> On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 13:16:38 -0500
> Damian Gerow <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > : > The load average on my machine is inexplicably high; when idle, it sits up
> > : > between 0.6 and 0.7.
> > :
> > : Oh my god, the horror. Nothing is wrong with your machine at all.
> > : However, I have a diff which will probably keep you happy.
> >
> > Not sure if you caught my last paragraph, but I did say that nothing was
> > wrong with the system at all, I'm just curious as to why the average is
> > high.
> >
> >
>
> The simple explanation is found in Mark Zimmerman's reply:
> "
> I bet you could get your load average to drop if you forced your cpu
> to run full speed even when doing nothing. I am guessing that this is
> not really what you want.
> "

Wrong.

> I guess you are assuming the load average is calculated against some
> a-priori max available cpu-cycles when, from Theo's posts, it looks
> like it is being calculated against current available cycles.

Wrong.

> When your cpu is in a power-save mode it has less cycles available,
> so the minimal load you place on it still consumes a higher fraction
> of what is available.

Wrong.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Oddly high load average

Duncan Patton a Campbell
On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 12:30:21 -0700
Theo de Raadt <[hidden email]> wrote:

> > On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 13:16:38 -0500
> > Damian Gerow <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > > : > The load average on my machine is inexplicably high; when idle, it sits up
> > > : > between 0.6 and 0.7.
> > > :
> > > : Oh my god, the horror. Nothing is wrong with your machine at all.
> > > : However, I have a diff which will probably keep you happy.
> > >
> > > Not sure if you caught my last paragraph, but I did say that nothing was
> > > wrong with the system at all, I'm just curious as to why the average is
> > > high.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > The simple explanation is found in Mark Zimmerman's reply:
> > "
> > I bet you could get your load average to drop if you forced your cpu
> > to run full speed even when doing nothing. I am guessing that this is
> > not really what you want.
> > "
>
> Wrong.
>
> > I guess you are assuming the load average is calculated against some
> > a-priori max available cpu-cycles when, from Theo's posts, it looks
> > like it is being calculated against current available cycles.
>

Ok.  So considering the speed with which this patch appeared I'm going
to assume there's more here than meets the eye.  Just the same it looked
like a sampling (when/where) issue to me.

> Wrong.
>
> > When your cpu is in a power-save mode it has less cycles available,
> > so the minimal load you place on it still consumes a higher fraction
> > of what is available.
>
> Wrong.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Oddly high load average

disintx-2
In reply to this post by Theo de Raadt
I won't pretend to understand how OpenBSD calculates its load averages, but
keep in mind that not every OS calculates them the same.

For instance, my OpenBSD box:
$ uptime
11:46AM  up 3 days, 18:29, 1 user, load averages: 0.08, 0.08, 0.08
I have a .08 load average and there are no services other than sshd and pf
running.

If your performance isn't taking a hit, don't worry about it.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Oddly high load average

Theo de Raadt
> I won't pretend to understand how OpenBSD calculates its load averages, but
> keep in mind that not every OS calculates them the same.
>
> For instance, my OpenBSD box:
> $ uptime
> 11:46AM  up 3 days, 18:29, 1 user, load averages: 0.08, 0.08, 0.08
> I have a .08 load average and there are no services other than sshd and pf
> running.
>
> If your performance isn't taking a hit, don't worry about it.

And if you really are worried, use the patch I mailed out earlier,
and the load will always be zero.  Then there are no more worries!

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Oddly high load average

J Sisson
In reply to this post by Duncan Patton a Campbell
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 1:49 PM, Duncan Patton a Campbell <
[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Ok.  So considering the speed with which this patch appeared I'm going
> to assume there's more here than meets the eye.  Just the same it looked
> like a sampling (when/where) issue to me.
>

 Take note of the OP's name, then read the "patch".  The patch was pure
sarcasm.  Theo's point (if I'm not mistaken) is that the code is operating
as intended.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Oddly high load average

new_guy
In reply to this post by Theo de Raadt
deraadt wrote
And if you really are worried, use the patch I mailed out earlier,
and the load will always be zero.  Then there are no more worries!
That's both cruel and funny at the same time.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Oddly high load average

William Boshuck
In reply to this post by Damian Gerow
On Fri, Nov 07, 2008 at 02:05:19PM -0500, Damian Gerow wrote:
>
> I would assume you're referring to uvm_loadav in uvm_meter.c?  That's where
> I'm looking.  I was hoping for a little English to help me with my
> understanding, but maybe I'm just not clever enough.

Likely this is not the real problem.

If you don't know the algorithms used to calculate load averages,
then you don't have a good reason to expect them to be different
from what you see. ("It was different on Linux" is not a good reason;
when you performed the installation you must have noticed that you
were not installing Linux. Some vague expectations about how you
think load averages are, or ought to be, calculated do not add up
to a good reason either.)

If this is something that you really want to understand then the
thing to do is learn the code that calculates the load averages.
Since there is nothing wrong with your system, then there is no
rush, and you have the time to do that carefully (even if it takes
months or longer - you can learn it a little at a time).  The only
thing stopping you is impatience; another side of the real problem.

cheers,
-wb

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Oddly high load average

Theo de Raadt
> > I would assume you're referring to uvm_loadav in uvm_meter.c?  That's where
> > I'm looking.  I was hoping for a little English to help me with my
> > understanding, but maybe I'm just not clever enough.
>
> Likely this is not the real problem.
>
> If you don't know the algorithms used to calculate load averages,
> then you don't have a good reason to expect them to be different
> from what you see. ("It was different on Linux" is not a good reason;
> when you performed the installation you must have noticed that you
> were not installing Linux. Some vague expectations about how you
> think load averages are, or ought to be, calculated do not add up
> to a good reason either.)
>
> If this is something that you really want to understand then the
> thing to do is learn the code that calculates the load averages.
> Since there is nothing wrong with your system, then there is no
> rush, and you have the time to do that carefully (even if it takes
> months or longer - you can learn it a little at a time).  The only
> thing stopping you is impatience; another side of the real problem.

I think that is way too many words to give to someone who is simply
being led by their expectations.

They simply expect everything to be the same; kind of like imagine if
the rest of the developed world had to pay for health care because
Americans have to.

Just an example, but it shows the mindset.

And your advice about Linux is correct.  If he really wants Linux
load average values, he should go run Linux.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Oddly high load average

Francesco Vollero
Theo de Raadt ha scritto:
>>> I would assume you're referring to uvm_loadav in uvm_meter.c?  That's where
>>> I'm looking.  I was hoping for a little English to help me with my
>>> understanding, but maybe I'm just not clever enough.
>>>      
>> Likely this is not the real problem.
>>    
[snip]

> I think that is way too many words to give to someone who is simply
> being led by their expectations.
>
> They simply expect everything to be the same; kind of like imagine if
> the rest of the developed world had to pay for health care because
> Americans have to.
>
> Just an example, but it shows the mindset.
>
> And your advice about Linux is correct.  If he really wants Linux
> load average values, he should go run Linux.
>  
You're right Theo, but isn't better an answer like: RTFC ? Just 4 char.
If he understand or not isnt our business...Maybe, he can ask why it's
different but...who cares about it.
And dont send this kind of patch someone here in misc@ can use it ahahahah
Maybe someone can write the algorithm in latex  or in pseudo code syntax
but, later someone ask what mean...

Nights

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Oddly high load average

Theo de Raadt
> You're right Theo, but isn't better an answer like: RTFC ? Just 4 char.

There is no point in telling people who can't read the code, to go
read the code.  It won't change a thing.  They really will keep coming
back to misc showing their false expectations.

> If he understand or not isnt our business...Maybe, he can ask why it's
> different but...who cares about it.

I think the mailing lists would be better if it wasn't always full of
people asking stupid questions, and then being answered by people with
ridiculous or uneducated answers.

Not that I want to be here providing the correct answers.  Why bother?
They won't be understood, and it isn't worth our time to explain things
properly.

But it also isn't worth anyone's time to see stupid questions answered
with stupid answers, is it.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Oddly high load average

William Boshuck
On Fri, Nov 07, 2008 at 10:09:08PM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > You're right Theo, but isn't better an answer like: RTFC ? Just 4 char.
>
> There is no point in telling people who can't read the code, to go
> read the code.  It won't change a thing.  They really will keep coming
> back to misc showing their false expectations.

If he reads _learn_ the code as stare blankly at the code for
fifteen minutes and then ask another question, then I've done
the list a disservice.  But I don't think it's ridiculous to
emphasize that OpenBSD is a rational and well documented system
that can be learned gradually by someone who is willing to take
the time.  Maybe you're right that it won't sink in, though.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Oddly high load average

Christoph Leser
In reply to this post by Theo de Raadt
> I think the mailing lists would be better if it wasn't always full of
> people asking stupid questions, and then being answered by people with
> ridiculous or uneducated answers.

> Not that I want to be here providing the correct answers.  Why bother?
> They won't be understood, and it isn't worth our time to explain things
> properly.

> But it also isn't worth anyone's time to see stupid questions answered
> with stupid answers, is it.

I confess that I have asked stupid questions here too. Nevertheless the
replies I got sometimes helped me out. So I even dared to answer to a few
messages, although I may well be considered uneducated or even ridiculous.

Sorry for this. I promise to keep my mouth shut in the future :-)

12