linux-kernel - Re: Meaningless load?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 10 Oct 2012 18:22:44 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Simon Klinkert <simon.klinkert@...il.com>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, mingo@...hat.com,
	Trond.Myklebust@...app.com
Subject: Re: Meaningless load?

On Wed, 2012-10-10 at 17:44 +0200, Simon Klinkert wrote:
> I'm just wondering if the 'load' is really meaningful in this
> scenario. The machine is the whole time fully responsive and looks
> fine to me but maybe I didn't understand correctly what the load
> should mean. Is there any sensible interpretation of the load?

I'll leave meaningful aside, but uninterruptible (D state) is part of
how the load thing is defined, so your 500 result is correct.
--
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/