Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 9 Nov 2004 01:43:35 +0100 | From | Patrick Mau <> | Subject | Re: Workaround for wrapping loadaverage |
| |
On Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 03:50:51PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > > (PLease don't remove people from Cc:. Just do reply-to-all).
Hi Andrew,
sorry, I usually remove people from CC if they're subscribed.
> Patrick Mau <mau@oscar.ping.de> wrote: > > > > If you would use 236, 252 and 255 the last to load calculations would > > get optimized into register shifts during calculation. The precision > > would be bad, but I personally don't mind loosing the fraction. > > What would be the impact on the precision if we were to use 8 bits of > fraction?
I didn't have time to check again, but I think I ended up with a load of 0.97 using one runnable process because of rounding errors.
> An upper limit of 1024 tasks sounds a bit squeezy. Even 8192 is a bit > uncomfortable. Maybe we should just reimplement the whole thing, perhaps > in terms of tuples of 32-bit values: 32 bits each side of the binary point?
We re-calculate the load every 5 seconds. I think it would be OK to use more bits/registers, it's not that frequently called.
It's 1:30 AM and I had a rough working day, maybe I'll prepare a little patch tomorrow. I think that 8192 _runnable_ processes seems a bit unusual, but we also account for uninterruptable processes. Maybe there was some swap/IO storm that triggered the initial overflow, I'll have to check that first.
Best regards, Patrick - 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/
| |