Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 26 Sep 2002 10:37:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 26 Sep 2002 10:37:18 -0400 Received: from perninha.conectiva.com.br ([200.250.58.156]:27804 "EHLO perninha.conectiva.com.br") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 26 Sep 2002 10:37:16 -0400 Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 11:42:16 -0300 (BRT) From: Rik van Riel X-X-Sender: riel@duckman.distro.conectiva To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Con Kolivas , Subject: Re: Useful fork info? WAS Re: [BENCHMARK] fork_load module tested for contest In-Reply-To: Message-ID: X-spambait: aardvark@kernelnewbies.org X-spammeplease: aardvark@nl.linux.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1007 Lines: 31 On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > fork_load: > > Kernel Time CPU Ratio > > 2.4.19 97.11 67% 1.33 > > 2.4.19-ck7 72.34 92% 0.99 > > 2.5.38 75.32 92% 1.03 > > 2.5.38-mm2 74.99 92% 1.03 > > shouldnt the CPU load be 100% for such a test? The total load, yes. The CPU has one 'make -j4' on the kernel source and one fork load. What I don't understand is why the fork load only gets 8% of the CPU, instead of the 20% that is its right... regards, Rik -- A: No. Q: Should I include quotations after my reply? http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/