Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 6 Oct 2002 16:20:47 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 6 Oct 2002 16:20:47 -0400 Received: from 2-225.ctame701-1.telepar.net.br ([200.193.160.225]:57067 "EHLO 2-225.ctame701-1.telepar.net.br") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 6 Oct 2002 16:20:44 -0400 Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2002 17:26:02 -0300 (BRT) From: Rik van Riel X-X-Sender: riel@imladris.surriel.com To: jw schultz cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Unable to kill processes in D-state In-Reply-To: <20021006024902.GB31878@pegasys.ws> 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: 1110 Lines: 34 On Sat, 5 Oct 2002, jw schultz wrote: > > TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE processes are counted in count_active_tasks() - > > because it is assumed they will only sleep a very short while - which is > > what is used in the load balance. > > I stand corrected. The load average reported will reflect > them. The D-state processes, however, will have nearly zero > effect on the system performance, yes? Ummm, if your X server and window manager are in D state, that has as big an effect on system performance as you can imagine... > So in this case the load average reported is simply an infated number. Not really, IO wait is often a much larger slowdown factor than CPU occupancy. regards, Rik -- Bravely reimplemented by the knights who say "NIH". http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/ Spamtraps of the month: september@surriel.com trac@trac.org - 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/