From: Christopher S. A. <ca...@th...> - 2005-05-04 01:33:26
|
Has the constant "loadavg of 1" bug been resolved, or has the patch been accepted into 2.6.12? Blaisorblade -- it appears to be back. My recent tests with 2.6.11 vanilla still exhibit this problem. -Chris |
From: Christopher S. A. <ca...@th...> - 2005-05-06 03:24:02
|
> Has the constant "loadavg of 1" bug been resolved, or has the patch been accepted > into 2.6.12? > > Blaisorblade -- it appears to be back. My recent tests with 2.6.11 vanilla still > exhibit this problem. It appears as though uml-fix-update_process_times-call.patch fixes the values in /proc/stat, but the loadavg of 1 problem still exists. -Chris |
From: Blaisorblade <bla...@ya...> - 2005-05-07 15:22:36
|
On Friday 06 May 2005 05:30, Christopher S. Aker wrote: > > Has the constant "loadavg of 1" bug been resolved, or has the patch been > > accepted into 2.6.12? > > > > Blaisorblade -- it appears to be back. My recent tests with 2.6.11 > > vanilla still exhibit this problem. > > It appears as though uml-fix-update_process_times-call.patch fixes the > values in /proc/stat, but the loadavg of 1 problem still exists. In fact, what I saw with "top" is that the loadavg. is 1, ksoftirqd is always running, but the CPU time it gets is always 0. It's really strange, I'll have to ask on LKML. However, a question: does it show up also on 2.6.10 or not? -- Paolo Giarrusso, aka Blaisorblade Skype user "PaoloGiarrusso" Linux registered user n. 292729 http://www.user-mode-linux.org/~blaisorblade |
From: Christopher S. A. <ca...@th...> - 2005-05-07 20:14:24
|
> It's really strange, I'll have to ask on LKML. However, a question: does it > show up also on 2.6.10 or not? Yes, it started with 2.6.10. Fine in 2.6.9. -Chris |