NetBSD-Users archive
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
What is the "[system]" process representing ?
Folks, I recently installed NetBSD on a Lenovo M83 Tiny machine and from
time to time, I notice the "[system]" (appears to be a kernel thread?)
getting up to 80% of the CPU while the box is doing .... nothing. No
processes are active and a reboot clears the issue (except when it
doesn't. I power-cycle *then* it's cleared). The only reason I noticed in
the first place was because of the system-fan spinning up. FYI, this is
just a standard NetBSD 7 install (not -current).
What is "[system]" really doing? Is there a way to get a more granular
look at what is going on?
On another system, I have a question about a 1.8Ghz CoreDuo based 32-bit
i386 laptop with 2GB of RAM. I noticed that '[system]' accumulates the
most time on the host, but it's never "on the board" when I run top or
other tools. It's overall usage is trivial. However, I notice that if I
install debian 8.6 on this machine, I see that 'systemd' (yes, I know it's
much different and not a kernel process and not apples to apples) is
_always_ taking between 5-10% of the CPU and is nearly always the #1
consumer. This is on a fresh installation! I just want to make sure I'm
not missing some critical fact like perhaps the '[system]' process on
NetBSD is masking it's CPU usage and is doing the same amount of work
(doubtful, but possible). This is, after all, a pretty old machine.
So, the basic question is this. Is my x61 ThinkPad actually getting
slapped around by systemd or is it that system just so slow it's just
exaggerating an effect that would be hard to detect on a fast/new box? I'm
trying to rule out some mistake or misconfiguration on my part that a
systemd advocate (ie.. not me) would point out and say "You just didn't do
it right."
The corollary is, does NetBSD do the same work but just mask the CPU
usage? I really really doubt this but I wanted to ask to make sure before
I make any kind of "linux vs netbsd" claim in this case.
Man, if that's really the "new normal" for Linux, it's hard to believe.
I'm tempted to install it on my 500Mhz AMD Geode system. It'd probably
take up 50% of the CPU if the effect scales... Maybe they don't care
because they've already eschewed both sysv-init and systemd for
Busybox-init? Great news for embedded BSD developers, I'd think. :-P
Thanks,
Swift
Home |
Main Index |
Thread Index |
Old Index