Re: [Xen-users] Load Average 1.00 at idle

["Michael J. Baysek" <mjbaysek@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Michael Vrable wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 11:43:10AM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
>   
> > On Tue, 13 Sep 2005, master@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >
> >     
> > > Spoke too soon on the 1.00 load average. Other than that, both dom0 and
> > > domU boot and networking works -- yea!
> > >
> > > [root@teegeeack ~]# uptime&&uname -a
> > >  07:47:13 up 12:40,  2 users,  load average: 1.00, 1.00, 1.00
> > > Linux teegeeack.bradleyland.com 2.6.12-1.1454_FC4xen0 #1 SMP Fri Sep 9
> > > 00:19:20 EDT 2005 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux
> > >       
> > I'm also seeing the load average problem on my system.
> >     
> Same here.  I think the culprit is the kxbwatch kernel thread, which ps
> shows as being in the "D" (uninterruptible sleep) state most of the time
> on my system.  My understanding of load average computation is that "D"
> processes count as running (typically, they correspond to a running
> process blocked on I/O).
>
> If this is the case, then the load average of 1.00 should be harmless,
> though it would be nice to get the xenbus thread to use a normal sleep
> so it doesn't skew the load average.
>
> --Michael Vrable
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-users mailing list
> Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
>
>   
Whatever it is, it does not seem to slow the domU's down.  In fact, they 
seem snappier than they did under the 1398 RPMs.  It just makes things 
tougher for accuracy/monitoring purposes.
--
Mike Baysek
Systems Analyst
Auton Lab, NSH 3123 

_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users