From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-block-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from esa2.hgst.iphmx.com ([68.232.143.124]:37589 "EHLO
        esa2.hgst.iphmx.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1752347AbeENRgG (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-block@vger.kernel.org>);
        Mon, 14 May 2018 13:36:06 -0400
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] psi: pressure stall information for CPU, memory, and
 IO
To: Christopher Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-block@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
        Balbir Singh <bsingharora@gmail.com>,
        Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>,
        Oliver Yang <yangoliver@me.com>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>,
        xxx xxx <x.qendo@gmail.com>,
        Taras Kondratiuk <takondra@cisco.com>,
        Daniel Walker <danielwa@cisco.com>,
        Vinayak Menon <vinmenon@codeaurora.org>,
        Ruslan Ruslichenko <rruslich@cisco.com>, kernel-team@fb.com
References: <20180507210135.1823-1-hannes@cmpxchg.org>
 <010001635f4e8be9-94e7be7a-e75c-438c-bffb-5b56301c4c55-000000@email.amazonses.com>
From: Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@wdc.com>
Message-ID: <cb81b9f2-a280-d8a9-c720-247fb9f5fa90@wdc.com>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2018 10:35:37 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <010001635f4e8be9-94e7be7a-e75c-438c-bffb-5b56301c4c55-000000@email.amazonses.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Sender: linux-block-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-block@vger.kernel.org

On 05/14/18 08:39, Christopher Lameter wrote:
> On Mon, 7 May 2018, Johannes Weiner wrote:
>> What to make of this number? If CPU utilization is at 100% and CPU
>> pressure is 0, it means the system is perfectly utilized, with one
>> runnable thread per CPU and nobody waiting. At two or more runnable
>> tasks per CPU, the system is 100% overcommitted and the pressure
>> average will indicate as much. From a utilization perspective this is
>> a great state of course: no CPU cycles are being wasted, even when 50%
>> of the threads were to go idle (and most workloads do vary). From the
>> perspective of the individual job it's not great, however, and they
>> might do better with more resources. Depending on what your priority
>> is, an elevated "some" number may or may not require action.
> 
> This looks awfully similar to loadavg. Problem is that loadavg gets
> screwed up by tasks blocked waiting for I/O. Isnt there some way to fix
> loadavg instead?

The following article explains why it probably made sense in 1993 to 
include TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE in loadavg and also why this no longer 
makes sense today:

http://www.brendangregg.com/blog/2017-08-08/linux-load-averages.html

Bart.