FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Ubuntu > Ubuntu Kernel Team

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 03-10-2010, 08:08 PM
Chase Douglas
 
Default Process & threads - Karmic vs past kernels

On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Peter Matulis
<peter.matulis@canonical.com> wrote:
> Can anyone tell me whether the Karmic kernel has implemented a different
> way of what it considers a process (as opposed to threads)?
>
> I have a situation where CPU load is zero on Karmic but considerably
> higher in Jaunty and earlier.
>
> The scenario is a single java process with many threads. *The system has
> 4 cores and only one java process should logically produce a negligible
> CPU load but why was this not the case with earlier kernels? *Has
> something changed in Karmic that would explain what I'm seeing?

I doubt that to be the case. Have you been able to get more data for
your bug [1]?

Thanks,
Chase

[1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/513848

--
kernel-team mailing list
kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team
 
Old 03-12-2010, 01:17 PM
Peter Matulis
 
Default Process & threads - Karmic vs past kernels

Chase Douglas wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Peter Matulis
> <peter.matulis@canonical.com> wrote:
>> Can anyone tell me whether the Karmic kernel has implemented a different
>> way of what it considers a process (as opposed to threads)?
>>
>> I have a situation where CPU load is zero on Karmic but considerably
>> higher in Jaunty and earlier.
>>
>> The scenario is a single java process with many threads. The system has
>> 4 cores and only one java process should logically produce a negligible
>> CPU load but why was this not the case with earlier kernels? Has
>> something changed in Karmic that would explain what I'm seeing?
>
> I doubt that to be the case. Have you been able to get more data for
> your bug [1]?
>
> Thanks,
> Chase
>
> [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/513848

Yes, but I couldn't get as much CPU usage out of the Karmic test. My
'top' results show the following:

Cpu1 : 0.3%us, 0.6%sy
Cpu2 : 2.4%us, 0.6%sy
Cpu3 : 9.1%us, 1.8%sy
Cpu4 : 16.0%us, 7.4%sy

With a load of 0.00 across the board.

Now since CPU1 has such a low usage it makes sense that load is
negligible since that CPU is always available. It seems that the
question is now:

Why the CPU usage is so much different between Karmic and Jaunty in this
(single process/multiple thread) scenario.

--
Peter Matulis | GPG 34F740E8
Ubuntu Support Team | Canonical Ltd. (canonical.com)

--
kernel-team mailing list
kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team
 
Old 03-12-2010, 01:27 PM
Peter Matulis
 
Default Process & threads - Karmic vs past kernels

Peter Matulis wrote:
> Chase Douglas wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Peter Matulis
>> <peter.matulis@canonical.com> wrote:
>>> Can anyone tell me whether the Karmic kernel has implemented a different
>>> way of what it considers a process (as opposed to threads)?
>>>
>>> I have a situation where CPU load is zero on Karmic but considerably
>>> higher in Jaunty and earlier.
>>>
>>> The scenario is a single java process with many threads. The system has
>>> 4 cores and only one java process should logically produce a negligible
>>> CPU load but why was this not the case with earlier kernels? Has
>>> something changed in Karmic that would explain what I'm seeing?
>> I doubt that to be the case. Have you been able to get more data for
>> your bug [1]?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Chase
>>
>> [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/513848
>
> Yes, but I couldn't get as much CPU usage out of the Karmic test. My
> 'top' results show the following:
>
> Cpu1 : 0.3%us, 0.6%sy
> Cpu2 : 2.4%us, 0.6%sy
> Cpu3 : 9.1%us, 1.8%sy
> Cpu4 : 16.0%us, 7.4%sy
>
> With a load of 0.00 across the board.
>
> Now since CPU1 has such a low usage it makes sense that load is
> negligible since that CPU is always available. It seems that the
> question is now:
>
> Why the CPU usage is so much different between Karmic and Jaunty in this
> (single process/multiple thread) scenario.
>

Actually, CPU usage and load do not have as high a correlation as I
first thought. Comments?

--
Peter Matulis | GPG 34F740E8
Ubuntu Support Team | Canonical Ltd. (canonical.com)

--
kernel-team mailing list
kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team
 
Old 03-12-2010, 01:34 PM
Tim Gardner
 
Default Process & threads - Karmic vs past kernels

On 03/12/2010 07:17 AM, Peter Matulis wrote:
> Chase Douglas wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Peter Matulis
>> <peter.matulis@canonical.com> wrote:
>>> Can anyone tell me whether the Karmic kernel has implemented a different
>>> way of what it considers a process (as opposed to threads)?
>>>
>>> I have a situation where CPU load is zero on Karmic but considerably
>>> higher in Jaunty and earlier.
>>>
>>> The scenario is a single java process with many threads. The system has
>>> 4 cores and only one java process should logically produce a negligible
>>> CPU load but why was this not the case with earlier kernels? Has
>>> something changed in Karmic that would explain what I'm seeing?
>>
>> I doubt that to be the case. Have you been able to get more data for
>> your bug [1]?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Chase
>>
>> [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/513848
>
> Yes, but I couldn't get as much CPU usage out of the Karmic test. My
> 'top' results show the following:
>
> Cpu1 : 0.3%us, 0.6%sy
> Cpu2 : 2.4%us, 0.6%sy
> Cpu3 : 9.1%us, 1.8%sy
> Cpu4 : 16.0%us, 7.4%sy
>
> With a load of 0.00 across the board.
>
> Now since CPU1 has such a low usage it makes sense that load is
> negligible since that CPU is always available. It seems that the
> question is now:
>
> Why the CPU usage is so much different between Karmic and Jaunty in this
> (single process/multiple thread) scenario.
>

There was a pretty major change in the process and I/O schedulers
between Jaunty and Karmic. Lucid is different yet again.

--
Tim Gardner tim.gardner@canonical.com

--
kernel-team mailing list
kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team
 
Old 03-12-2010, 02:20 PM
Peter Matulis
 
Default Process & threads - Karmic vs past kernels

Tim Gardner wrote:
> On 03/12/2010 07:17 AM, Peter Matulis wrote:
>> Chase Douglas wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Peter Matulis
>>> <peter.matulis@canonical.com> wrote:
>>>> Can anyone tell me whether the Karmic kernel has implemented a
>>>> different
>>>> way of what it considers a process (as opposed to threads)?
>>>>
>>>> I have a situation where CPU load is zero on Karmic but considerably
>>>> higher in Jaunty and earlier.
>>>>
>>>> The scenario is a single java process with many threads. The system
>>>> has
>>>> 4 cores and only one java process should logically produce a negligible
>>>> CPU load but why was this not the case with earlier kernels? Has
>>>> something changed in Karmic that would explain what I'm seeing?
>>>
>>> I doubt that to be the case. Have you been able to get more data for
>>> your bug [1]?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Chase
>>>
>>> [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/513848
>>
>> Yes, but I couldn't get as much CPU usage out of the Karmic test. My
>> 'top' results show the following:
>>
>> Cpu1 : 0.3%us, 0.6%sy
>> Cpu2 : 2.4%us, 0.6%sy
>> Cpu3 : 9.1%us, 1.8%sy
>> Cpu4 : 16.0%us, 7.4%sy
>>
>> With a load of 0.00 across the board.
>>
>> Now since CPU1 has such a low usage it makes sense that load is
>> negligible since that CPU is always available. It seems that the
>> question is now:
>>
>> Why the CPU usage is so much different between Karmic and Jaunty in this
>> (single process/multiple thread) scenario.
>>
>
> There was a pretty major change in the process and I/O schedulers
> between Jaunty and Karmic. Lucid is different yet again.
>

Thanks Tim. Are you saying that the Karmic kernel is more efficient or
it's just a matter of how usage/load is reported (process/threads)?

Could you point me to the details concerning this change?

--
Peter Matulis | GPG 34F740E8
Ubuntu Support Team | Canonical Ltd. (canonical.com)

--
kernel-team mailing list
kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team
 
Old 03-15-2010, 07:42 PM
Chase Douglas
 
Default Process & threads - Karmic vs past kernels

On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 10:17 AM, Peter Matulis
<peter.matulis@canonical.com> wrote:
> Chase Douglas wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Peter Matulis
>> <peter.matulis@canonical.com> wrote:
>>> Can anyone tell me whether the Karmic kernel has implemented a different
>>> way of what it considers a process (as opposed to threads)?
>>>
>>> I have a situation where CPU load is zero on Karmic but considerably
>>> higher in Jaunty and earlier.
>>>
>>> The scenario is a single java process with many threads. *The system has
>>> 4 cores and only one java process should logically produce a negligible
>>> CPU load but why was this not the case with earlier kernels? *Has
>>> something changed in Karmic that would explain what I'm seeing?
>>
>> I doubt that to be the case. Have you been able to get more data for
>> your bug [1]?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Chase
>>
>> [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/513848
>
> Yes, but I couldn't get as much CPU usage out of the Karmic test. *My
> 'top' results show the following:
>
> Cpu1 *: *0.3%us, *0.6%sy
> Cpu2 *: *2.4%us, *0.6%sy
> Cpu3 *: *9.1%us, *1.8%sy
> Cpu4 *: 16.0%us, *7.4%sy
>
> With a load of 0.00 across the board.
>
> Now since CPU1 has such a low usage it makes sense that load is
> negligible since that CPU is always available. *It seems that the
> question is now:
>
> Why the CPU usage is so much different between Karmic and Jaunty in this
> *(single process/multiple thread) scenario.

First, I really can't figure out why the load would be 0.00 in all the
screen shots you posted in the bug. If you really need to know why the
load is reporting as 0.00, I'd probably have to build a test kernel to
spit out some statistics each time it goes to calculate the load. Are
you interested enough to go down that route?

But, in your second question you seem to say that this isn't a huge
deal, but you wonder why the cpu usage is lower in Karmic than in
Jaunty. To which I also have no answer, but it sort of falls into the
"if it ain't broke, don't fix it" category for me.

-- Chase

--
kernel-team mailing list
kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team
 
Old 03-16-2010, 02:27 PM
Peter Matulis
 
Default Process & threads - Karmic vs past kernels

Chase Douglas wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 10:17 AM, Peter Matulis
> <peter.matulis@canonical.com> wrote:
>> Chase Douglas wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Peter Matulis
>>> <peter.matulis@canonical.com> wrote:
>>>> Can anyone tell me whether the Karmic kernel has implemented a different
>>>> way of what it considers a process (as opposed to threads)?
>>>>
>>>> I have a situation where CPU load is zero on Karmic but considerably
>>>> higher in Jaunty and earlier.
>>>>
>>>> The scenario is a single java process with many threads. The system has
>>>> 4 cores and only one java process should logically produce a negligible
>>>> CPU load but why was this not the case with earlier kernels? Has
>>>> something changed in Karmic that would explain what I'm seeing?
>>> I doubt that to be the case. Have you been able to get more data for
>>> your bug [1]?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Chase
>>>
>>> [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/513848
>> Yes, but I couldn't get as much CPU usage out of the Karmic test. My
>> 'top' results show the following:
>>
>> Cpu1 : 0.3%us, 0.6%sy
>> Cpu2 : 2.4%us, 0.6%sy
>> Cpu3 : 9.1%us, 1.8%sy
>> Cpu4 : 16.0%us, 7.4%sy
>>
>> With a load of 0.00 across the board.
>>
>> Now since CPU1 has such a low usage it makes sense that load is
>> negligible since that CPU is always available. It seems that the
>> question is now:
>>
>> Why the CPU usage is so much different between Karmic and Jaunty in this
>> (single process/multiple thread) scenario.
>
> First, I really can't figure out why the load would be 0.00 in all the
> screen shots you posted in the bug. If you really need to know why the
> load is reporting as 0.00, I'd probably have to build a test kernel to
> spit out some statistics each time it goes to calculate the load. Are
> you interested enough to go down that route?

Yes.

> But, in your second question you seem to say that this isn't a huge
> deal, but you wonder why the cpu usage is lower in Karmic than in
> Jaunty. To which I also have no answer, but it sort of falls into the
> "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" category for me.

I'm just trying to figure out what's happening in my own crude, and
probably wrong, way. This issue is important to the Support Team.

Right now we would like to make sure the Kernel Team has all relevant
info customer-side - that the bug is fully triaged.


--
Peter Matulis | GPG 34F740E8
Ubuntu Support Team | Canonical Ltd. (canonical.com)

--
kernel-team mailing list
kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 05:48 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org