<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">On Wed, Sep 3, 2025 at 6:31\u202fAM Chris Frey <<a href="mailto:cdfrey@foursquare.net">cdfrey@foursquare.net</a>> wrote:</div></div><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">On Wed, Sep 03, 2025 at 06:07:17AM -0400, Khalid Baheyeldin wrote:<br>
> On Wed, Sep 3, 2025, 02:32 Chris Frey <<a href="mailto:cdfrey@foursquare.net" target="_blank">cdfrey@foursquare.net</a>> wrote:<br>
> <br>
> > What about syscall load?<br>
> ><br>
> <br>
> Do you mean as reported by the time command?<br>
> Or do you mean something else?<br>
<br>
I believe this would be reported by the strace command, tracking<br>
read and write syscalls. My theory is that with a varying blocksizes,<br>
it will impact the number of trips into kernel space, and therefore<br>
CPU load.<br>
<br>
A fast machine may be able to keep up with, and saturate, available<br>
disk bandwidth. So even with the same throughput, CPU load and syscall<br>
counts may differ. If so, then a slower machine may care about blocksize.<br>
</blockquote></div><div><br clear="all"></div><div style="font-size:small" class="gmail_default">That makes perfect sense: the more round trips into the kernel and out</div><div style="font-size:small" class="gmail_default">the more CPU utilization.</div><div style="font-size:small" class="gmail_default"><br></div><div style="font-size:small" class="gmail_default">I just thought that "syscall load" is a metric that can be displayed by some</div><div style="font-size:small" class="gmail_default">utility, like load average, hence the question.<br></div><br><span class="gmail_signature_prefix">-- </span><br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature">Khalid M. Baheyeldin</div></div>