From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix, from userid 118) id 7D164E0090A; Wed, 28 Mar 2018 18:24:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on yocto-www.yoctoproject.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-HAM-Report: * 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider * (armccurdy[at]gmail.com) * -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no * trust * [209.85.128.193 listed in list.dnswl.org] * -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0000] * -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's * domain * 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily * valid * -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature Received: from mail-wr0-f193.google.com (mail-wr0-f193.google.com [209.85.128.193]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8D51E007F2 for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2018 18:24:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wr0-f193.google.com with SMTP id p53so3869448wrc.10 for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2018 18:24:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Js56i8Hrtakpj4dMdT7LXOejiowTA5SXIgAYHJ82MZU=; b=BGfM9FWZjJOGDdClHVuiRZHE1tYVXW9sbfHNamJxe6lLxK+ol+uz+0DTm81HlvI0x8 n1AAEV3h+SyC0cyxdrXJWPjEs3Zl2JHGDaX6qGjgGjfj0+sHLQcFQWLdWLlw2df4uWao 0YyyuAXfY1bOyLRobOnLkJHZwCaGc1nGe+MVAHe1LGeJsDZ2ceNfvXpT/WWCD7AWLqy3 FskgR/b3hIeQrega5k+ZVwgLWk2heboHCUbIRX2Rso956RMrNiLudk3OrwGM4iWO4Piz /P6BwD4MPyZc15ZHn6/iIPl32tAfldKTs28xRqlQpwu0cj7n4GiXBu+rK51vxH8LyRiJ 3IMw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Js56i8Hrtakpj4dMdT7LXOejiowTA5SXIgAYHJ82MZU=; b=NfPBcYzyVjaysw3Vh1oBdaOWtqOxodF89Yv59w4fotbwcc+dCrWqJwZwfwV2tQ6sIo IfDAUSs1ljS+1tkcyC6fF5EEhyTBzNTDPeaFELyzm9U4LEBJFnxP7AA36cPzXqiQ2Q2H 66nICsUhPjW/wvjZqmlfLLpsF5Vqbf9qYFcZNgyH6tNJHmIYBf0pJk4ZAinEFstKbQRD YpDldkqgG8VUEgC8/EQtXCZRYrnYkBFX8j4b3FqAxnwUyEPwKjz/FgkI+TMgxRwEOn5D AtAovcptPOw9Ct3mMuyo9Pdo2lRmW8aB23DAK56/IVMEckwNtV/w19EfGsgX6/kkXD1o ewpw== X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7E60CXF9cva8yVc9O2y9vmOuI4janFvWS/tHwtjwP0INhavd6+B K9b39bbnhwwyopALQmihZVBTHlpoptF1VMv0/YE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx4/4QxNSihiauprln2Duzuqpu0O194weuuLZQoxHfWaXlKqvlaUMvomzosOBRVQT9K8FY9xXH/j4fQT3RWhK7JQ= X-Received: by 10.223.175.201 with SMTP id y9mr4627185wrd.107.1522286663413; Wed, 28 Mar 2018 18:24:23 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.223.163.65 with HTTP; Wed, 28 Mar 2018 18:24:22 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <12dbba60-2346-0020-64c8-db2dac948684@nedap.com> References: <12dbba60-2346-0020-64c8-db2dac948684@nedap.com> From: Andre McCurdy Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 18:24:22 -0700 Message-ID: To: Ryan Meulenkamp Cc: Yocto discussion list , OE Core mailing list Subject: Re: CPU Load X-BeenThere: yocto@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of all things Yocto Project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 01:24:26 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 4:44 AM, Ryan Meulenkamp wrote: > Hi y'all, > > I have some questions about CPU load and performance, but first some > background information. > > We have small embedded system running an openembedded classic (Angstr=C3= =B6m) > distro. Now to get ourselves up-to-date we started working on a new > iteration of the OS based on openembedded core and Yocto. It is nearly > finished now, if it weren't for one problem: The CPU load (/proc/loadavg)= of > the core/yocto based OS is more than double that of the classic/Angstr=C3= =B6m OS. > > So the way I see it this could be caused by a number of factors: > > - loadavg's calculation changed > - certain newer versions of applications run heavier > - The kernel itself is heavier (we upgraded from 2.6.35.14+ to 4.9.28+) > - Possibly caused by some configs > - ... > > My question: is there something that changed since OE-classic that you kn= ow > could be the cause of this? If not, how would I go about finding the caus= e? > I don't think the top command is sufficient for this, because it's precis= ion > is such that many processes' CPU usage just become 0%. You don't say what the CPU doubled from or too. 1% to 2%, or 50% to 100% ? Unless the absolute increase is very small, you can probably ignore the processes which top reports as 0%. Does the new build have any significant processes running which weren't there in the old build? Or is it the same basic set of apps running in each? > Also, both top and > htop cause huge cpu loads themselves. > > Any tips and tricks would be welcome! > > Thanks in advance! > > Ryan > -- > _______________________________________________ > yocto mailing list > yocto@yoctoproject.org > https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wr0-f196.google.com (mail-wr0-f196.google.com [209.85.128.196]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC1F560017 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2018 01:24:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wr0-f196.google.com with SMTP id z73so3890864wrb.0 for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2018 18:24:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Js56i8Hrtakpj4dMdT7LXOejiowTA5SXIgAYHJ82MZU=; b=BGfM9FWZjJOGDdClHVuiRZHE1tYVXW9sbfHNamJxe6lLxK+ol+uz+0DTm81HlvI0x8 n1AAEV3h+SyC0cyxdrXJWPjEs3Zl2JHGDaX6qGjgGjfj0+sHLQcFQWLdWLlw2df4uWao 0YyyuAXfY1bOyLRobOnLkJHZwCaGc1nGe+MVAHe1LGeJsDZ2ceNfvXpT/WWCD7AWLqy3 FskgR/b3hIeQrega5k+ZVwgLWk2heboHCUbIRX2Rso956RMrNiLudk3OrwGM4iWO4Piz /P6BwD4MPyZc15ZHn6/iIPl32tAfldKTs28xRqlQpwu0cj7n4GiXBu+rK51vxH8LyRiJ 3IMw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Js56i8Hrtakpj4dMdT7LXOejiowTA5SXIgAYHJ82MZU=; b=YwaDpr+7VqxE6r7xJhm+0moAeT109y7XzGjuSloOMbsMki0iGRwEkZNLsnEEKVIsL+ nZE/eDo0a0jMSYFuEFwQFuh59TCbowP5e/ttqQ3xauPjcntzwKM9+Ci4CMxdrrnBgQc2 wx5DbjJ/sU8wNOfar4AuWWMyxTxKV9evL4m+1chBl42k9JIafyTFAzWto+oFK46+y56/ pTcZQmMuJVqgESyvi5YkrPd9XFHbcoWo78UAzSFTvNFTap2Mwzt0fu/3GBUkapqUUSbW 6W2J8IXy92UyqgXOR3a2e5PZS0bTlGwDkclTsFXYs97e7CcZxlDqnUGOp8WD4yoO4Dwg D8eQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7EKJ3WJup+KCyvdafv1pmWmqmTk8D2o4p3npfzosWV8bEPW2sau 64hvadGstl03KfuF0thufvdsUwoJcYpmS4VdJZM= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx4/4QxNSihiauprln2Duzuqpu0O194weuuLZQoxHfWaXlKqvlaUMvomzosOBRVQT9K8FY9xXH/j4fQT3RWhK7JQ= X-Received: by 10.223.175.201 with SMTP id y9mr4627185wrd.107.1522286663413; Wed, 28 Mar 2018 18:24:23 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.223.163.65 with HTTP; Wed, 28 Mar 2018 18:24:22 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <12dbba60-2346-0020-64c8-db2dac948684@nedap.com> References: <12dbba60-2346-0020-64c8-db2dac948684@nedap.com> From: Andre McCurdy Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 18:24:22 -0700 Message-ID: To: Ryan Meulenkamp Cc: Yocto discussion list , OE Core mailing list Subject: Re: [yocto] CPU Load X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 01:24:23 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 4:44 AM, Ryan Meulenkamp wrote: > Hi y'all, > > I have some questions about CPU load and performance, but first some > background information. > > We have small embedded system running an openembedded classic (Angstr=C3= =B6m) > distro. Now to get ourselves up-to-date we started working on a new > iteration of the OS based on openembedded core and Yocto. It is nearly > finished now, if it weren't for one problem: The CPU load (/proc/loadavg)= of > the core/yocto based OS is more than double that of the classic/Angstr=C3= =B6m OS. > > So the way I see it this could be caused by a number of factors: > > - loadavg's calculation changed > - certain newer versions of applications run heavier > - The kernel itself is heavier (we upgraded from 2.6.35.14+ to 4.9.28+) > - Possibly caused by some configs > - ... > > My question: is there something that changed since OE-classic that you kn= ow > could be the cause of this? If not, how would I go about finding the caus= e? > I don't think the top command is sufficient for this, because it's precis= ion > is such that many processes' CPU usage just become 0%. You don't say what the CPU doubled from or too. 1% to 2%, or 50% to 100% ? Unless the absolute increase is very small, you can probably ignore the processes which top reports as 0%. Does the new build have any significant processes running which weren't there in the old build? Or is it the same basic set of apps running in each? > Also, both top and > htop cause huge cpu loads themselves. > > Any tips and tricks would be welcome! > > Thanks in advance! > > Ryan > -- > _______________________________________________ > yocto mailing list > yocto@yoctoproject.org > https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto