Process & threads - Karmic vs past kernels

Peter Matulis peter.matulis at
Tue Mar 16 15:27:24 UTC 2010

Chase Douglas wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 10:17 AM, Peter Matulis
> <peter.matulis at> wrote:
>> Chase Douglas wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Peter Matulis
>>> <peter.matulis at> 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]
>> 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.

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. (

More information about the kernel-team mailing list