Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750918AbWEIAIM (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 May 2006 20:08:12 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750926AbWEIAIM (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 May 2006 20:08:12 -0400 Received: from omta05ps.mx.bigpond.com ([144.140.83.195]:51383 "EHLO omta05ps.mx.bigpond.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750918AbWEIAIK (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 May 2006 20:08:10 -0400 Message-ID: <445FDD68.20703@bigpond.net.au> Date: Tue, 09 May 2006 10:08:08 +1000 From: Peter Williams User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.2 (X11/20060501) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: High load average on disk I/O on 2.6.17-rc3 References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Authentication-Info: Submitted using SMTP AUTH PLAIN at omta05ps.mx.bigpond.com from [147.10.133.38] using ID pwil3058@bigpond.net.au at Tue, 9 May 2006 00:08:09 +0000 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 923 Lines: 24 Bernd Eckenfels wrote: > Erik Mouw wrote: >> ... except that any kernel < 2.6 didn't account tasks waiting for disk >> IO. Load average has always been somewhat related to tasks contending >> for CPU power. > > Actually all Linux kernels accounted for diskwaits and others like BSD based > not. It is a very old linux oddness. Personally, I see both types of load estimates (i.e. CPU only and CPU plus IO wait) as useful. Why can't we have both? The cost would be minimal. Peter -- Peter Williams pwil3058@bigpond.net.au "Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious." -- Ambrose Bierce - 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/