From owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jan 3 22:50:01 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@smarthost.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [8.8.178.115]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AA142E5 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 22:50:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206c::16:87]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A299B42 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 22:50:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r03Mo1IY075606 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 22:50:01 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) id r03Mo1Eg075602; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 22:50:01 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 22:50:01 GMT Message-Id: <201301032250.r03Mo1Eg075602@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Cc: From: =?UTF-8?B?VmlrdG9yIMWgdHVqYmVy?= Subject: Re: kern/173541: load average 0.60 at 100% idle X-BeenThere: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list Reply-To: =?UTF-8?B?VmlrdG9yIMWgdHVqYmVy?= List-Id: Bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2013 22:50:01 -0000 The following reply was made to PR kern/173541; it has been noted by GNATS. From: =?UTF-8?B?VmlrdG9yIMWgdHVqYmVy?= To: Johan Broman Cc: bug-followup@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: kern/173541: load average 0.60 at 100% idle Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2013 23:44:46 +0100 For my system's kernel I just undid that one revision I mentioned earlier. No ill-effects observed. Since the change is so low-level and there is no rationale provided in the commit message, I do not know what improvement it was supposed to achieve. I tried e-mailing the author of that commit, but got no response. Also, due to the low-power nature of my system, I can't test if the 0.60 load is real, or just a by-product of broken time accounting. Either way it might be affecting the process scheduler.