[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <82e4877d0707251240t4c5dcff7wb3c7523e577ddb76@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 15:40:11 -0400
From: "Parag Warudkar" <parag.warudkar@...il.com>
To: "Pavel Machek" <pavel@....cz>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
"Nigel Cunningham" <ncunningham@...uxmail.org>
Subject: Re: 2.6.22 - Suspend and Weird Load Averages
Hi Pavel!
On 7/25/07, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz> wrote:
> Known, and Rafael/Nigel have patches to fix that.
Thanks for the info - Rafael/Nigel do you have any patches for me to
try/modify - I am just curious to see what approach the patches take
to fix this - I had started thinking about TASK_SUSPENDED which would
be equivalent to TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE for all purposes except load
calculation (not counted in nr_uninterruptible) but somehow I think
there might be a less intrusive / more correct way to do this.
>
> OTOH I'm not sure it is a problem -- lets just say that suspend is
> hard work and therefore it raises load avg?
> Pavel
Hehe, nope - that would be inefficient suspend for me! Any way I
understand it's purely a cosmetic problem but if we could be
cosmetically correct to report the right uptime after suspend sans the
sleep time (unlike other OSes which include sleep time when reporting
it) I think we should also fix this one to report correct load
averages.
Cheers
Parag
-
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