[lkml]   [2004]   [Nov]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: 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 <> 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,
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:07    [W:0.090 / U:3.808 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site