From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix, from userid 118) id A5338E00C9E; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 04:45:43 -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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-HAM-Report: * -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no * trust * [213.160.213.85 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 X-Greylist: delayed 63 seconds by postgrey-1.32 at yocto-www; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 04:45:42 PDT Received: from smtp4.nedap.com (smtp4.nedap.com [213.160.213.85]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79C1DE0084D for ; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 04:45:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nedap.com; i=@nedap.com; q=dns/txt; s=20161201; t=1522151142; x=1553687142; h=to:from:subject:message-id:date:mime-version: content-transfer-encoding; bh=PZ9dhT3nKbloL18lVcyidfmheEVFfgpT4oFRCNquan0=; b=qmiiC+yHognnxi67/TOoEQQuYxS33BcB4mWtAoI/lXuH42MPaVe4uX9v dJ1QZw6/bkZoldAh5NOTVpyU6w7voUv7c3XqNvOPkNPrtNK6onshQTmoe 9HcXwj/EuWdX17/+9u7IcUQNJOgFAPdK0NdpXgxdzYSPNKwy2tyeNZtbr s=; X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.48,367,1517871600"; d="scan'208";a="1277097" Received: from nedap.nedap.local (HELO [10.2.16.212]) ([10.2.16.212]) by smtp4.nedap.com with ESMTP; 27 Mar 2018 13:44:37 +0200 To: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org, yocto@yoctoproject.org From: Ryan Meulenkamp Message-ID: <12dbba60-2346-0020-64c8-db2dac948684@nedap.com> Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 13:44:37 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: 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: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 11:45:43 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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 (Angström) 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/Angström 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 know could be the cause of this? If not, how would I go about finding the cause? I don't think the top command is sufficient for this, because it's precision is such that many processes' CPU usage just become 0%. Also, both top and htop cause huge cpu loads themselves. Any tips and tricks would be welcome! Thanks in advance! Ryan