Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id <S129609AbQKKBrL>; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 20:47:11 -0500
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S129714AbQKKBrB>; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 20:47:01 -0500
Received: from neon-gw.transmeta.com ([209.10.217.66]:32772 "EHLO
	neon-gw.transmeta.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id <S129609AbQKKBqs>; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 20:46:48 -0500
Message-ID: <3A0CA4F5.4715FE49@transmeta.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 17:46:29 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@transmeta.com>
Organization: Transmeta Corporation
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.0-test11 i686)
X-Accept-Language: en, sv, no, da, es, fr, ja
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ralf Baechle <ralf@uni-koblenz.de>
CC: "Jeff V. Merkey" <jmerkey@timpanogas.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: sendmail fails to deliver mail with attachments in /var/spool/mqueue
In-Reply-To: <3A0C3F30.F5EB076E@timpanogas.org> <3A0C6B7C.110902B4@timpanogas.org> <3A0C6E01.EFA10590@timpanogas.org> <26054.973893835@euclid.cs.niu.edu> <8uhs7c$2hr$1@cesium.transmeta.com> <3A0C76C0.CAC8B9D4@timpanogas.org> <20001111024440.E29352@bacchus.dhis.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Ralf Baechle wrote:
> 
> Jeff,
> 
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 03:29:20PM -0700, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> 
> > Well, here's what the sendmail folks **REAL** opinion of Linux is and
> > the way load average is calculated (senders name removed)
> >
> > [... sendmail person ...]
> >
> >  Ok, here's my blunt answer: Linux sucks.  Why does it have a load
> > > average of 10 if there are two processes running? Let's check the
> > > man page:
> > >
> > >             and the three load averages for the system.  The load
> > >             averages  are  the average number of process ready to
> > >             run during the last 1, 5 and 15 minutes.   This  line
> > >             is  just  like  the  output of uptime(1).
> > >
> > > So: Linux load average on these systems is broken.
> 
> Or the documentation is b0rken?  This is how the load figure is actually
> calculated:
> 
> /*
>  * Nr of active tasks - counted in fixed-point numbers
>  */
> static unsigned long count_active_tasks(void)
> {
>         struct task_struct *p;
>         unsigned long nr = 0;
> 
>         read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
>         for_each_task(p) {
>                 if ((p->state == TASK_RUNNING ||
>                      (p->state & TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE)))
>                         nr += FIXED_1;
>         }
>         read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
>         return nr;
> }
> 

Yes, the documentation is broken.  Linus did in fact implement this
change because it made most daemons behave significantly better.  This
ought to include sendmail; it's just that on modern systems the numbers
get a little too high for it.

	-hpa

-- 
<hpa@transmeta.com> at work, <hpa@zytor.com> in private!
"Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."
http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/