On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 4:57 PM, Beau Henderson <b...@thehenderson.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 1:18 AM, James <wirel...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote: >> >> <podge <at> podgeweb.com> writes: >> >> >> > > I was wondering if anyone might have any idea's as to what is causing >> > > my >> > > new Toshiba A300 Satelite to idle at a load of 1.00 when not in use. >> > > Right >> > > after boot up it settles at 1.00 when I do nothing. I'm not seeing >> > > anything >> > > out of ordinary in dmesg ( asside from an non issue with legacy usb >> > > and sd >> > > and sr drivers in the kernel ). >> >> Ah, >> >> I have had a similar problem a few months ago on one system (AMD 64 X2). >> I never figured it out, but I suspect that rebuilding X, KDE and many >> other utilities over time, fixed it. X seems to use more resources than >> it should. But, in reality, after a while, it just went away. None of the >> other AMD 64 X2 systems I manage, had the problem. The load was always 1.0 >> or higher. >> >> >> I think I even posted to this list and we discussed the meaning of "load" >> too. >> >> Here's some good reading on "load average" >> >> http://www.teamquest.com/resources/gunther/display/5/ >> >> > > Hey, > > I'm fairly comfortable with the definition of load average, that's not > something I need clarification on, but thanks to all whom have offered. > > I'll fire up htop today and see if its able to identify anything that top or > ps hasn't as yet. > > I'm relatively certain the issue isn't related to X or gnome as the load > shoots up immediately after boot up and the load issue happens even without > firing up startx.
I wonder if the laptop could be going into some low-speed, low-power mode, causing it to seem "slow" and thus making the load seem artificially high? (assuming you're using CPU frequency scaling at all)
