[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200702121712.50168.kernel@kolivas.org>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 17:12:50 +1100
From: Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org>
To: malc <av1474@...tv.ru>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: CPU load
On Monday 12 February 2007 16:54, malc wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > On 12/02/07, Vassili Karpov <av1474@...tv.ru> wrote:
>
> [..snip..]
>
> > The kernel looks at what is using cpu _only_ during the timer
> > interrupt. Which means if your HZ is 1000 it looks at what is running
> > at precisely the moment those 1000 timer ticks occur. It is
> > theoretically possible using this measurement system to use >99% cpu
> > and record 0 usage if you time your cpu usage properly. It gets even
> > more inaccurate at lower HZ values for the same reason.
>
> Thank you very much. This somewhat contradicts what i saw (and outlined
> in usnet article), namely the mplayer+/dev/rtc case. Unless ofcourse
> /dev/rtc interrupt is considered to be the same as the interrupt from
> PIT (on X86 that is)
>
> P.S. Perhaps it worth documenting this in the documentation? I caused
> me, and perhaps quite a few other people, a great deal of pain and
> frustration.
Lots of confusion comes from this, and often people think their pc suddenly
uses a lot less cpu when they change from 1000HZ to 100HZ and use this as an
argument/reason for changing to 100HZ when in fact the massive _reported_
difference is simply worse accounting. Of course there is more overhead going
from 100 to 1000 but it doesn't suddenly make your apps use 10 times more
cpu.
--
-ck
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists