On 10.10.2012, at 18:22, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, 2012-10-10 at 17:44 +0200, Simon Klinkert wrote: >> I'm just wondering if the 'load' is really meaningful in this >> scenario. The machine is the whole time fully responsive and looks >> fine to me but maybe I didn't understand correctly what the load >> should mean. Is there any sensible interpretation of the load? > > I'll leave meaningful aside, but uninterruptible (D state) is part of > how the load thing is defined, so your 500 result is correct.
Yes, the calculation of the load is correct but I still don't know how I should interpret the load… On 11.10.2012, at 06:02, Mike Galbraith wrote: > Makes perfect sense to me. Work _is_ stack this high. We don't and > can't know whether the mountain is made of popcorn balls or boulders. That's the point. Afaik the D state never represents 'work'. These processes are waiting for something. Let's say we have 10,000 processes in the D state (and thus a load of ~10,000) doing nothing. What should the load tell me? The machine is under fire? There is nothing to do? There might be something to do but the machine doesn't know? Simon -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
