Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 16:54:26 +0200 (CEST)
Message-Id: <20120530.165426.1421117300206344483.anders@netinsight.net>
To: dsmythies@telus.net
Cc: jrnieder@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        leslaw.kopec@nasza-klasa.pl, aman@tmm1.net, a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl,
        tglx@linutronix.de
Subject: Re: [3.2.16 -> 3.2.17 regression] High reported CPU load when idle
From: Anders =?iso-8859-1?Q?Bostr=F6m?= <anders@netinsight.net>
In-Reply-To: <000c01cd3e70$b651dd10$22f59730$@net>
References: <20120523215359.GA19798@burratino>
	<20120524214516.GB1158@burratino>
	<000c01cd3e70$b651dd10$22f59730$@net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1240
Lines: 23

>>>>> "DS" == Doug Smythies <dsmythies@telus.net> writes:

 DS> This statement: "Starting with 3.2.17-1, the CPU load accounting is broken when the computer is idle. The CPU load is reported as >0.50 when idle. 3.2.16-1 don't suffer from this problem."
 DS> In my opinion has the following mistakes:
 DS> . The computer is not actually idle. If it was actually idle the reported load average would be 0.

Well, I tested in single user mode, with very few processes running,
mostly init, getty, bash and top (+ a lot of kernel threads). And
3.2.17 reported a load of >0.5 . Under the same conditions 3.2.16
typically reports 0.01 or 0.00 .

 DS> . Yes, the new kernel reported load average is high, as detailed in the PNG file or the web notes.
 DS> . The older kernel suffers from a different problem, under all other conditions being the same, the reported load average would have been too low.

I don't know if 0.01 is *too* low, but it should be much closer to the
truth than >0.5.

/ Anders
--
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/