![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
In my case I will still be running thousands of processes, so I have to just teach everyone not to use top instead. David Lang On 18 Dec 2002, Robert Love wrote: > Date: 18 Dec 2002 20:42:58 -0500 > From: Robert Love <rml@tech9.net> > To: David Lang <dlang@diginsite.com> > Cc: William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com>, > Till Immanuel Patzschke <tip@inw.de>, > lse-tech <lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net>, > "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org> > Subject: Re: 15000+ processes -- poor performance ?! > > On Wed, 2002-12-18 at 20:20, David Lang wrote: > > Ok, I wasn't sure of the cause, but I've seen this as far back as 2.2 I > > had a machine trying to run 2000 processes under 2.2 and 2.4.0 (after > > upping the 2.2 kernel limit) and top would cost me ~40% throughput on the > > machine (while claiming it was useing ~5% of the CPU) > > Yah a lot of it is like William is saying... you just do not want to > read multiple files for each process in /proc when you have a kajillion > processes, and that is what top does. Over and over. > > Work has gone into 2.5 to make this a lot better.. If you use threads > with NPTL in 2.5, a lot of this is resolved, since the sub-threads will > not show up in as /proc/#/ entries. > > Robert Love > - 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/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 12:31 [W:1.388 / U:0.030 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | |||||||||||||