Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261319AbUKIAnr (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Nov 2004 19:43:47 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261341AbUKIAnr (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Nov 2004 19:43:47 -0500 Received: from p508EFF93.dip.t-dialin.net ([80.142.255.147]:16256 "EHLO oscar.local.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261319AbUKIAnp (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Nov 2004 19:43:45 -0500 Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 01:43:35 +0100 From: Patrick Mau To: Andrew Morton Cc: Linux Kernel Subject: Re: Workaround for wrapping loadaverage Message-ID: <20041109004335.GA1822@oscar.prima.de> Reply-To: Patrick Mau References: <20041108001932.GA16641@oscar.prima.de> <20041108012707.1e141772.akpm@osdl.org> <20041108102553.GA31980@oscar.prima.de> <20041108155051.53c11fff.akpm@osdl.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20041108155051.53c11fff.akpm@osdl.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1612 Lines: 39 On Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 03:50:51PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > > (PLease don't remove people from Cc:. Just do reply-to-all). Hi Andrew, sorry, I usually remove people from CC if they're subscribed. > Patrick Mau wrote: > > > > If you would use 236, 252 and 255 the last to load calculations would > > get optimized into register shifts during calculation. The precision > > would be bad, but I personally don't mind loosing the fraction. > > What would be the impact on the precision if we were to use 8 bits of > fraction? I didn't have time to check again, but I think I ended up with a load of 0.97 using one runnable process because of rounding errors. > An upper limit of 1024 tasks sounds a bit squeezy. Even 8192 is a bit > uncomfortable. Maybe we should just reimplement the whole thing, perhaps > in terms of tuples of 32-bit values: 32 bits each side of the binary point? We re-calculate the load every 5 seconds. I think it would be OK to use more bits/registers, it's not that frequently called. It's 1:30 AM and I had a rough working day, maybe I'll prepare a little patch tomorrow. I think that 8192 _runnable_ processes seems a bit unusual, but we also account for uninterruptable processes. Maybe there was some swap/IO storm that triggered the initial overflow, I'll have to check that first. Best regards, Patrick - 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/