Bug 117724

Summary: Kernel load in Xen not correct
Product: [openSUSE] SUSE LINUX 10.0 Reporter: Michael Schwartzkopff <misch>
Component: KernelAssignee: Kurt Garloff <garloff>
Status: RESOLVED WORKSFORME QA Contact: E-mail List <qa-bugs>
Severity: Major    
Priority: P5 - None    
Version: RC 1   
Target Milestone: ---   
Hardware: i686   
OS: SUSE Other   
Whiteboard:
Found By: Other Services Priority:
Business Priority: Blocker: ---
Marketing QA Status: --- IT Deployment: ---

Description Michael Schwartzkopff 2005-09-19 08:30:56 UTC 
Installing Xen from the scratch and booting into Xen seems to works. But on my
system the processor load is not displayed corrrectly. The miminum load is 1.0
in dom0 (should be 0.0). Yet no other domain installed.

Booting the same system with the normal kernel displays correct load values.

System: 2.6.13-8-default (or -xen), processor: 6.11.1, Celeron 1200 MHz
Comment 1 Michael Schwartzkopff 2005-09-19 08:31:46 UTC 
For further information or test please contact me.
Comment 2 Kurt Garloff 2005-10-06 01:34:55 UTC 
Hmm, it displays a load of 0 here. 
 
garloff@tpkurt:~ [0]$ uname -a 
Linux tpkurt 2.6.13-15-xen #1 Tue Sep 13 14:56:15 UTC 2005 i686 i686 i386 
GNU/Linux 
garloff@tpkurt:~ [0]$ rpm -q xen 
xen-3.0_6715-2 
garloff@tpkurt:~ [0]$ uptime 
  3:33am  up 1 day 14:38,  6 users,  load average: 0.01, 0.36, 14.15 
 
Can you reproduce with the final release on SL10.0 (aka RC4)?
Comment 3 Ralf Müller 2005-10-11 09:26:51 UTC 
> Can you reproduce with the final release on SL10.0 (aka RC4)?  
 
I can: 
 
xencore:~ # uname -a 
Linux xencore 2.6.13-15-xen #1 Tue Sep 13 14:56:15 UTC 2005 i686 i686 i386 
GNU/Linux 
xencore:~ # rpm -q xen 
xen-3.0_6715-2 
xencore:~ # uptime 
 11:26am  up   0:06,  1 user,  load average: 1.00, 0.77, 0.36 
xencore:~ #
Comment 4 Kurt Garloff 2005-11-25 10:26:13 UTC 
Does top show a process that eats the CPU?
Any processes that that are in 'D' state?
Comment 5 Michael Schwartzkopff 2005-11-25 11:34:16 UTC 
Nothing special in top. That was the first thing I looked for. I did not look for any processes in state "D", but I think there wasn't. I do not have the machine any more, so I cannot reproduce the error at the moment.

The answer time of the machine was OK, It responded fast. So I think only the conculation of the load number was incorrect somehow. Perhaps I find some time so build up the machine again.
Comment 6 Kurt Garloff 2005-12-20 20:51:43 UTC 
SO, let's ignore this for now.
Thanks for your report anyway.