Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 18 Dec 2002 20:35:08 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 18 Dec 2002 20:35:08 -0500 Received: from svr-ganmtc-appserv-mgmt.ncf.coxexpress.com ([24.136.46.5]:34823 "EHLO svr-ganmtc-appserv-mgmt.ncf.coxexpress.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 18 Dec 2002 20:35:07 -0500 Subject: Re: 15000+ processes -- poor performance ?! From: Robert Love To: David Lang Cc: William Lee Irwin III , Till Immanuel Patzschke , lse-tech , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Message-Id: <1040262178.855.106.camel@phantasy> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.1 Date: 18 Dec 2002 20:42:58 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 959 Lines: 21 On Wed, 2002-12-18 at 20:20, David Lang wrote: > Ok, I wasn't sure of the cause, but I've seen this as far back as 2.2 I > had a machine trying to run 2000 processes under 2.2 and 2.4.0 (after > upping the 2.2 kernel limit) and top would cost me ~40% throughput on the > machine (while claiming it was useing ~5% of the CPU) Yah a lot of it is like William is saying... you just do not want to read multiple files for each process in /proc when you have a kajillion processes, and that is what top does. Over and over. Work has gone into 2.5 to make this a lot better.. If you use threads with NPTL in 2.5, a lot of this is resolved, since the sub-threads will not show up in as /proc/#/ entries. Robert Love - 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/