Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 03:50:53 +1100 (EST) From: Ian Smith <smithi@nimnet.asn.au> To: Michael Sierchio <kudzu@tenebras.com> Cc: Alex <bartlett03@gmail.com>, Grant Peel <gpeel@thenetnow.com>, FreeBSD Questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: 9.3 Process Averages Message-ID: <20141020032110.Q56328@sola.nimnet.asn.au> In-Reply-To: <CAHu1Y73YvGS0sZzHUtZYOw0NeaqKu1PFt86xyXzPmN5OmWZShA@mail.gmail.com> References: <mailman.65.1413633601.70420.freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> <20141019203658.M56328@sola.nimnet.asn.au> <CAHu1Y73YvGS0sZzHUtZYOw0NeaqKu1PFt86xyXzPmN5OmWZShA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 08:44:44 -0700, Michael Sierchio wrote: > Is device polling enabled? Nope. > The load average is a global number of runnable-but-waiting processes, but > you should divide by the number of cores to get something more intuitively > meaningful Yeah it's supposed to be. I just applied the fix referred to in: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=173541 itself referred from this forum post: https://forums.freebsd.org/threads/high-load-average-with-idle-state.38757/ Namely, setting '# sysctl kern.eventtimer.timer=LAPIC' (previously HPET) on my (still) 9.3-PRERELEASE system, the load averages shown immediately started to drop from the previously shown 0.6 or so, after a minute or two to 0.10, 0.30, 0.45, and now a few minutes later to: last pid: 97253; load averages: 0.14, 0.09, 0.12 up 104+00:06:03 03:31:07 87 processes: 3 running, 83 sleeping, 1 waiting CPU: 0.4% user, 0.0% nice, 3.4% system, 0.0% interrupt, 96.1% idle Mem: 468M Active, 787M Inact, 482M Wired, 9680K Cache, 202M Buf, 116M Free Swap: 2048M Total, 153M Used, 1895M Free, 7% Inuse ie, about what I'd expect from an essentially idle system. Thanks to Alex, whose message just arrived here; I'd read it on the list webpage before following the above. (Alex, that PR is there if you remove the 'kern/' ie just as above .. perhaps to do with the change to Bugzilla?) Whether using LAPIC instead of HPET has any consequences here remains to be seen. cheers, Ian
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20141020032110.Q56328>