I made this function in Octave which plots fractals. Now, it takes a long time to plot all the points I've calculated. I've made my function as efficient as possible, the only way I think I can make it plot faster is by having my CPU completely focus itself on the function or telling it somehow it should focus on my plot.
Is there a way I can do this or is this really the limit?
To determine how much CPU is being consumed for your plot, run your plot, and in a separate window (assuming your on Linux/Unix), run the top command. (for windows, launch the task master and switch to the 'Processes' tab, click on CPU header to sort by CPU).
(The rollover description for Octave on the tag on your question says that Octave is a scripting language. I would expect it's calling gnuplot to create the plots. Look for this as the highest CPU consumer).
You should see that your Octave/gnuplot cmd is near the top of the list, and for top there is a column labeled %CPU (or similar). This will show you how much CPU that process is consuming.
I would expect to see that process is consuming 95% or more CPU. If you see that is a significantly lower number, then you need to check the processes below that, are they consuming the remaining CPU (some sort of Virus scan (on a PC), or DB or Server?)? If a competing program is the problem, then you'll have to decide if you can wait til it/they are finished, OR that you can kill them and restart later. (For lunix, use kill -15 pid or kill -11 pid. Only use kill -9 pid as a last resort. Search here for articles on correct order for trying to kill -$n)
If there are no competing processes AND it octave/gnuplot is using less than 95%, then you'll have to find alternate tools to see what is holding up the process. (This is unlikely, it's possible some part of your overall plotting process is either Disk I/O or Network I/O bound).
So, it depends on the timescale you're currently experiencing versus the time you "want" to experience.
Does your system have multiple CPUs? Then you'll need to study the octave/gnuplot documentation to see if it supports a switch to indicate "use $n available CPUs for processing". (Or find a plotting program that does support using $n multiple CPUs).
Realistically, if your process now takes 10 mins, and you can, by eliminating competing processes, go from 60% to 90%, that is a %50 increase in CPU, but will only reduce it to 5 mins (not certain, maybe less, math is not my strong point ;-)). Being able to divide the task over 5-10-?? CPUs will be the most certain path to faster turn-around times.
So, to go further with this, you'll need to edit your question with some data points. How long is your plot taking? How big is the file it's processing. Is there something especially math intensive for the plotting you're doing? Could a pre-processed data file speed up the calcs? Also, if the results of top don't show gnuplot running at 99% CPU, then edit your posting to show the top output that will help us understand your problem. (Paste in your top output, select it with your mouse, and then use the formatting tool {} at the top of the input box to keep the formatting and avoid having the output wrap in your posting).
IHTH.
P.S. Note the # of followers for each of the tags you've assigned to your question by rolling over. You might get more useful "eyes" on your question by including a tag for the OS you're using, and a tag related to performance measurement/testing (Go to the tags tab and type in various terms to see how many followers you're getting. One bit of S.O. etiquette is to only specify 1 programming language (if appropriate) and that may apply to OS's too.)
Related
Oracle claims that its graalvm implementaion of R (called "FastR") is up to 40x faster than normal R (https://www.graalvm.org/r/). However, I ran this super simple (but realistic) 4 line test program and not only was GraalVM/FastR not 40x faster, it was actually 10x SLOWER!
x <- 1:300000/300000
mu <- exp(-400*(x-0.6)^2)+
5*exp(-500*(x-0.75)^2)/3+2*exp(-500*(x-0.9)^2)
y <- mu+0.5*rnorm(300000)
t1 <- system.time(fit1 <- smooth.spline(x,y,spar=0.6))
t1
In FASTR, t1 returns this value:
user system elapsed
0.870 0.012 0.901
While in the original normal R, I get this result:
user system elapsed
0.112 0.000 0.113
As you can see, FAST R is super slow even for this simple (ie 4 lines of code, no extra/special library imported etc). I tested this on a 16 core VM on Google Cloud. Thoughts? (FYI: I did a quick peek at the smooth.spline code, and it does call Fortran, but according to the Oracle marketing site, GraalVM/FastR is faster than even Fortran-R code.)
====================================
EDIT:
Per the comments from Ben Bolker and user438383 below, I modified the code to include a for loop so that the code ran for much longer and I had time to monitor CPU usage. The modified code is below:
x <- 1:300000/300000
mu <- exp(-400*(x-0.6)^2)+
5*exp(-500*(x-0.75)^2)/3+2*exp(-500*(x-0.9)^2)
y <- mu+0.5*rnorm(300000)
forloopfunction <- function(xTrain, yTrain) {
for (x in 1:100) {
smooth.spline(xTrain, yTrain, spar=0.6)
}
}
t1 <- system.time(fit1 <-forloopfunction(x,y))
t1
Now, the normal R returns this for t1:
user system elapsed
19.665 0.008 19.667
while FastR returns this:
user system elapsed
76.570 0.210 77.918
So, now, FastR is only 4x slower, but that's still considerably slower. (I would be ok with 5% to even 10% difference, but that's 400% difference.) Moreoever, I checked the cpu usage. Normal R used only 1 core (at 100%) for the entirety of the 19 seconds. However, surprisingly, FastR used between 100% and 300% of CPU usage (ie between 1 full core and 3 full cores) during the ~78 seconds. So, I think it fairly reasonably to conclude that at least for this test (which happens to be a realistic test for my very simple scenario), FastR is at least 4x slower while consuming ~1x to 3x more CPU cores. Particularly given that I'm not importing any special libraries which the FASTR team may not have time to properly analyze (ie I'm using just vanilla R code that ships with R), I think that there's something not quite right with the FASTR implementation, at least when it comes to speed. (I haven't tested accuracy, but that's now moot I think.) Has anyone else experienced anything similar or does anyone know of any "magic" configuration that one needs to do to FASTR to get its claimed speeds (or at least similar, ie +- 5% speeds to normal R)? (Or maybe there's some known limitation to FASTR that I may be able to work around, ie don't use normal fortran binaries etc, but use these special ones etc.)
TL;DR: your example is indeed not the best use-case for FastR, because it spends most of its time in R builtins and Fortran code. There is no reason for it to be slower on FastR, though, and we will work on fixing that. FastR may be still useful for your application overall or just for some selected algorithms that run slowly on GNU-R, but would be a good fit for FastR (loopy, "scalar" code, see FastRCluster package).
As others have mentioned, when it comes to micro benchmarks one needs to repeat the benchmark multiple times to allow the system to warm-up. This is important in any case, but more so for systems that rely on dynamic compilation, like FastR.
Dynamic just-in-time compilation works by first interpreting the program while recording the profile of the execution, i.e., learning how the program executes, and only then compiling the program using this knowledge to optimize it better(*). In case of dynamic languages like R, this can be very beneficial, because we can observe types and other dynamic behavior that is hard if not impossible to statically determine without actually running the program.
It should be now clear why FastR needs few iterations to show the best performance it can achieve. It is true that the interpretation mode of FastR has not been optimized very much, so the first few iterations are actually slower than GNU-R. This is not inherent limitation of the technology that FastR is based on, but tradeoff of where we put our resources. Our priority in FastR has been peak performance, i.e., after a sufficient warm-up for micro benchmarks or for applications that run for long enough time.
To your concrete example. I could also reproduce the issue and I analyzed it by running the program with builtin CPU sampler:
$GRAALVM_HOME/bin/Rscript --cpusampler --cpusampler.Delay=20000 --engine.TraceCompilation example.R
...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thread[main,5,main]
Name || Total Time || Self Time || Location
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
order || 2190ms 81.4% || 2190ms 81.4% || order.r~1-42:0-1567
which || 70ms 2.6% || 70ms 2.6% || which.r~1-6:0-194
ifelse || 140ms 5.2% || 70ms 2.6% || ifelse.r~1-34:0-1109
...
--cpusampler.Delay=20000 delays the start of sampling by 20 seconds
--engine.TraceCompilation prints basic info about the JIT compilation
when the program finishes, it prints the table from CPU sampler
(example.R runs the micro benchmark in a loop)
One observation is that the Fotran routine called from smooth.spline is not to blame here. It makes sense because FastR runs the very same native Fortran code as GNU-R. FastR does have to convert the data to native memory, but that is probably small cost compared to the computation itself. Also the transition between native and R code is in general more expensive on FastR, but here it does not play a role.
So the problem here seems to be a builtin function order. In GNU-R builtin functions are implemented in C, they basically do a big switch on the type of the input (integer/real/...) and then just execute highly optimized C code doing the work on plain C integer/double/... array. That is already the most effective thing one can do and FastR cannot beat that, but there is no reason for it to not be as fast. Indeed it turns out that there is a performance bug in FastR and the fix is on its way to master. Thank you for bringing our attention to it.
Other points raised:
but according to the Oracle marketing site, GraalVM/FastR is faster than even Fortran-R code
YMMV. That concrete benchmark presented at our website does spend considerable amount of time in R code, so the overhead of R<->native transition does not skew the result as much. The best results are when translating the Fortran code to R, so making the whole thing just a pure R program. This shows that FastR can run the same algorithm in R as fast as or quite close to Fortran and that is, performance wise, the main benefit of FastR. There is no free lunch. Warm-up time and the costs of R<->native transition is currently the price to pay.
FastR used between 100% and 300% of CPU usage
This is due to JIT compilations going on on background threads. Again, no free lunch.
To summarize:
FastR can run R code faster by using dynamic just-in-time compilation and optimizing chunks of R code (functions or possibly multiple functions inlined into one compilation unit) to the point that it can get close or even match equivalent native code, i.e., significantly faster than GNU-R. This matters on "scalar" R code, i.e., code with loops. For code that spends majority of time in builtin R functions, like, e.g., sum((x - mean(x))^2) for large x, this doesn't gain that much, because that code already spends much of the time in optimized native code even on GNU-R.
What FastR cannot do is to beat GNU-R on execution of a single R builtin function, which is likely to be already highly optimized C code in GNU-R. For individual builtins we may beat GNU-R, because we happen to choose slightly better algorithm or GNU-R has some performance bug somewhere, or it can be the other way around like in this case.
What FastR also cannot do is speeding up native code, like Fortran routines that some R code may call. FastR runs the very same native code. On top of that, the transition between native and R code is more costly in FastR, so programs doing this transition too often may end up being slower on FastR.
Note: what FastR can do and is a work-in-progress is to run LLVM bitcode instead of the native code. GraalVM supports execution of LLVM bitcode and can optimize it together with other languages, which removes the cost of the R<->native transition and even gives more power to the compiler to optimize across this boundary.
Note: you can use FastR via the cluster package interface to execute only parts of you application.
(*) the first profiling tier may be also compiled, which gives different tradeoffs
I'm running distributed MPI programs on clusters using multiple nodes, where I make use of the MPI FFT's of FFTW. To save time I reuse wisdom from one run to the next. To generate this wisdom, FFTW experiments with a lot of different algorithms and what not for the given problem. I am worried that because I am working on a cluster, the best solution stored as wisdom for one set of CPUs/nodes may not be the best solution for some other set of CPUs/nodes performing the same task, and so I should not reuse wisdom unless I am running on exactly the same CPUs/nodes as the run where the wisdom was gathered.
Is this correct, or is the wisdom somehow completely indifferent to the physical hardware on which it is generated?
If your cluster is homogeneous, the saved fftw plans likely make sense, though the the way the processes are connected may affect optimal plans for mpi-related operations. But if your cluster is not homogeneous, saving the fftw plan can be suboptimal and problem related to load balance could proove hard to solve.
Taking a look at wisdom files produced by fftw and fftw_mpi for a 2D c2c transform, I can see additionnal lines likely related to phases like transposition where mpi communications are required, such as:
(fftw_mpi_transpose_pairwise_register 0 #x1040 #x1040 #x0 #x394c59f5 #xf7d5729e #xe8cf4383 #xce624769)
Indeed, there are different algorithms for transposing the 2D (or 3D) array: in the folder mpi of the source of fftw, files transpose-pairwise.c, transpose-alltoall.c and transpose-recurse.c implement these algorithms. As flags FFTW_MEASURE or FFTW_EXHAUSTIVE are set, these algorithms are run to select the fastest, as stated here. The result might depend on the topology of the network of processes (how many processes on each node? How these nodes are connected?). If the optimal plan depends on where the processes are running and on the network topology, using the wisdom utility will not be decisive. Otherwise, using the wisdom feature can save some time as the plan is built.
To test whether the optimal plan changed, you can perform a couple of runs and save the resulting plan in files: a reproductibility test!
int rank;
MPI_Comm_rank(MPI_COMM_WORLD, &rank);
fftw_mpi_gather_wisdom(MPI_COMM_WORLD);
if (rank == 0) fftw_export_wisdom_to_filename("wisdommpi.txt");
/* save the plan on each process ! Depending on the file system of the cluster, performing communications can be required */
char filename[42];
sprintf(filename, "wisdom%d.txt",rank);
fftw_export_wisdom_to_filename(filename);
Finally, to compare the produced wisdom files, try in a bash script:
for filename in wis*.txt; do
for filename2 in wis*.txt; do
echo "."
if grep -Fqvf "$filename" "$filename2"; then
echo "$filename"
echo "$filename2"
echo $"There are lines in file1 that don’t occur in file2."
fi
done
done
This script check that all lines in files are also present in the other files, following Check if all lines from one file are present somewhere in another file
On my personal computer, using mpirun -np 4 main, all wisdom files are identical except for a permutation of lines.
If the files are different from one run to another, it could be attributed to the communication pattern between processes... or sequential performance of dft for each process. The piece of code above save the optimal plan for each process. If lines related to sequential operations, without fftw_mpi in it, such as:
(fftw_codelet_n1fv_10_sse2 0 #x1440 #x1440 #x0 #xa9be7eee #x53354c26 #xc32b0044 #xb92f3bfd)
become different, it is a clue that the optimal sequential algorithm changes from one process to the other. In this case, the wall clock time of the sequential operations may also differ from one process to another. Hence, checking the load balance between processes could be instructive. As noticed in the documentation of FFTW about load balance:
Load balancing is especially difficult when you are parallelizing over heterogeneous machines; ... FFTW does not deal with this problem, however—it assumes that your processes run on hardware of comparable speed, and that the goal is therefore to divide the problem as equally as possible.
This assumption is consistent with the operation performed by fftw_mpi_gather_wisdom();
(If the plans created for the same problem by different processes are not the same, fftw_mpi_gather_wisdom will arbitrarily choose one of the plans.) Both of these functions may result in suboptimal plans for different processes if the processes are running on non-identical hardware...
The transpose operation in 2D and 3D fft requires a lot a communications: one of the implementation is a call to MPI_Alltoall involving almost the whole array. Hence, a good connectivity between nodes (infiniband...) can proove useful.
Let us know if you found different optimal plans from one run to another and how these plans differ!
I am trying to run "nvprof" from command line on R. Here is how I am doing it:
./nvprof --print-gpu-trace --devices 0 --analysis-metrics --export-profile /home/xxxxx/%p R
This gives me a R prompt and i write R code. I can do with Rscript too.
Problem i see is when i give --analysis-metrics option it gives me lots of lines similar to
==44041== Replaying kernel "void ger_kernel(cublasGerParams)"
And R process never ends. I am not sure what I am missing.
nvprof doesn't modify process exit behavior, so I think you're just suffering from slowness because your app invokes a lot of kernels. You have two options to speed this up.
1. Selectively profiling metrics
The --analysis-metrics option enables collection of a number of metrics, which requires kernels to be replayed - collecting a different set of metrics for each kernel run.
If your application has a lot of kernel invocations, this can take time. I'd suggest you query the available metrics with the nvprof --query-metrics command, and then manually choose the metrics you are interested in.
Once you know which metrics you want, you can query them using nvprof -m metric_1,metric_2,.... This way, the application will profile less metrics, hence requiring less replays, and running faster.
2. Selectively profiling kernels
Alternatively, you can only profile a specific kernel using the --kernels <context id/name>:<stream id/name>:<kernel name>:<invocation> option.
For example, nvprof --kernels ::foo:2 --analysis-metrics ./your_cuda_app will profile all analysis metrics for the kernel whose name contains the string foo, and only on its second invocation. This option takes regular expressions, and is quite powerful.
You can mix and match the above two approaches to speed up profiling. You will be able to find more help about these and other nvprof options using the command nvprof --help.
I'm new to Unix, however, I have recently realized that very simple Unix commands can do very simple things to large data set very very quickly. My question is why are these Unix commands so fast relative to R?
Let's begin by assuming that the data is big, but not larger than the amount of RAM on your computer.
Computationally, I understand that Unix commands are likely faster than their R counterparts. However, I can't imagine that this would explain the entire time difference. After all basic R functions, like Unix commands, are written in low-level languages like C/C++.
I therefore suspect that the speed gains have to do with I/O. While I only have a basic understanding of how computers work, I do understand that to manipulate data it most first be read from disk (assuming the data is local). This is slow. However, regardless of whether you use R functions or Unix commands to manipulate data both most obtain the data from disk.
Therefore I suspect that how data is read from disk, if that even makes sense, is what is driving the time difference. Is that intuition correct?
Thanks!
UPDATE: Sorry for being vague. This was done on purpose, I was hoping to discuss this idea in general, rather than focus on a specific example.
Regardless, I'll generate an example of counting the number of rows
First I'll generate a big data set.
row = 1e7
col = 50
df<-matrix(rpois(row*col,1),row,col)
write.csv(df,"df.csv")
Doing it with Unix
time wc -l df.csv
real 0m12.261s
user 0m1.668s
sys 0m2.589s
Doing it with R
library(data.table)
system.time({ nrow(fread("df.csv")) })
...
user system elapsed
26.77 1.67 47.07
Notice that elapsed/real > user + system. This suggests that the CPU is waiting on the disk.
I suspected the slow speed of R has to do with reading the data in. It appears that I'm right:
system.time(fread("df.csv"))
user system elapsed
34.69 2.81 47.41
My question is how is the I/O different for Unix and R. Why?
I'm not sure what operations you're talking about, but in general, more complex processing systems like R use more complex internal data structures to represent the data being manipulated, and constructing these data structures can be a big bottleneck, significantly slower than the simple lines, words, and characters that Unix commands like grep tend to operate on.
Another factor (depending on how your scripts are set up) is whether you're processing the data one thing at a time, in "streaming mode", or reading everything into memory. Unix commands tend to be written to operate in pipelines, and to read a small piece of data (usually one line), process it, maybe write out a result, and move on to the next line. If, on the other hand, you read the entire data set into memory before processing it, then even if you do have enough RAM, allocating and organizing all the necessary memory can be very expensive.
[updated in response to your additional information]
Aha. So you were asking R to read the whole file into memory at once. That accounts for much of the difference. Let's talk about a few more things.
I/O. We can think about three ways of reading characters from a file, especially if the style of processing we're doing affects the way that's most convenient to do the reading.
Unbuffered small, random reads. We ask the operating system for 1 or a few characters at a time, and process them as we read them.
Unbuffered large, block-sized reads. We ask the operating for big chunks of memory -- usually of a size like 1k or 8k -- and chew on each chunk in memory before asking for the next chunk.
Buffered reads. Our programming language gives us a way of asking for as many characters as we want out of an intermediate buffer, and code that's built into the language ("library" code) automatically takes care of keeping that buffer full by reading large, block-sized chunks from the operating system.
Now, the important thing to know is that the operating system would much rather read big, block-sized chunks. So #1 can be drastically slower than 2 and 3. (I've seen factors of 10 or 100.) But no well-written programs use #1, so we can pretty much forget about it. As long as you're using 2 or 3, the I/O speed will be roughly the same. (In extreme cases, if you know what you're doing, you can get a little efficiency increase by using 2 instead of 3, if you can.)
Now let's talk about the way each program processes the data. wc has basically 5 steps:
Read characters one at a time. (I can assure you it uses method 3.)
For each character read, add one to the character count.
If the character read was a newline, add one to the line count.
If the character read was or wasn't a word-separator character, update the word count.
At the very end, print out the counts of lines, words, and/or characters, as requested.
So as you can see it's all I/O and very simple, character-based processing. (The only step that's at all complicated is 4. As an exercise, I once wrote a version of wc that contrived not to do all of steps 2, 3, and 4 inside the read loop if the user didn't ask for all the counts. My version did indeed run significantly faster if you invoked wc -c or wc -l. But obviously the code was significantly more complicated.)
In the case of R, on the other hand, things are quite a bit more complicated. First, you told it to read a CSV file. So as it reads, it has to find the newlines separating lines and the commas separating columns. That's roughly equivalent to the processing that wc has to do. But then, for each number that it finds, it has to convert it into an internal number that it can work with efficiently. For example, if somewhere in the CSV file occurs the sequence
...,12345,...
R is going to have to read those digits (as individual characters) and then do the equivalent of the math problem
1 * 10000 + 2 * 1000 + 3 * 100 + 4 * 10 + 5 * 1
to get the value 12345.
But there's more. You asked R to build a table. A table is a specific, highly regular data structure which orders all the data into rigid rows and columns for efficient lookup. To see how much work that can be, let's use a slightly far-fetched hypothetical real-world example.
Suppose you're a survey company and it's your job to ask people walking by on the street certain questions. But suppose that the questions are complicated enough that you need all the people seated in a classroom at once. (Suppose further that the people don't mind this inconvenience.)
But first you have to build that classroom. You're not sure how many people are going to walk by, so you build an ordinary classroom, with room for 5 rows of 6 desks for 30 people, and you haul in the desks, and the people start filing in, and after 30 people file in you notice there's a 31st, so what do you do? You could ask him to stand in the back, but you're kind of fixated on the rigid-rows-and-columns idea, so you ask the 31st person to wait, and you quickly call the builders and ask them to build a second 30-person classroom right next to the first, and now you can accept the 31st person and in fact 29 more for a total of 60, but then you notice a 61st person.
So you ask him to wait, and you call the builders back again, and you have them build two more classrooms, so now you've got a nice 2x2 grid of 30-person classrooms, but the people keep coming and soon enough the 121st person shows up and there's not enough room and you still haven't even started asking your survey questions yet.
So you call some fancier builders that know how to do steelwork and you have them build a big 5-story building next door with 50-person classrooms, 5 on each floor, for a total of 50 x 5 x 5 = 1,250 desks, and you have the first 120 people (who've been waiting patiently) file out of the old rooms into the new building, and now there's room for the 121st person and quite a few more behind him, and you hire some wreckers to demolish the old classrooms and recycle some of the materials, and the people keep coming and pretty soon there's 1,250 people in your new building waiting to be surveyed and the 1,251st has just showed up.
So you build a giant new skyscraper with 1,000 desks on each floor and 100 floors, and you demolish the old 5-story building, but the people keep coming, and how big did you say your big data set was? 1e7 x 50? So I don't think the 100-story building is going to be big enough, either. (And when you're all done with all this, the only "survey question" you're going to ask is "How many rows are there?")
Contrived as it may seem, this is actually not too bad an analogy for what R is having to do internally to build the table to store that data set in.
Meanwhile, Bob's discount survey company, who can only tell you how many people he surveyed and how many were men and women and in which age brackets, is down there on the streetcorner, and the people are filing by, and Bob is jotting down tally marks on his clipboards, and the people, once surveyed, are walking away and going about their business, and Bob isn't wasting time and money building any classrooms at all.
I don't know anything about R, but see if there's a way to construct an empty 1e7 x 50 matrix up front, and read the CSV file into it. You might find that significantly quicker. R will still have to do some building, but at least it won't have any false starts.
Using GNU make on Windows, what exactly does the load-average value represent?
For example:
make -j --load-average=2.5
What does the 2.5 mean?
It means that make will not start any new thread until the number of runnable processes, averaged over some period of time is below 2.5.
Edit, following vines' remark
a runnable process, in Unix parlance, is a process that is either waiting for CPU time or readily running. Technically it is a process which is in TASK_RUNNING state.
However... this prompted me to re-read the original question, and note its "on Windows" part....
Whereby my original answer is, loosely, correct for GNU Make on Unix-like hosts, it is plain short of factual on Windows. The discrepancy of behavior is due to the fact the the two operating systems provide very different metrics to describe their "current" CPU load. Consequently Make's logic has to interpret these CPU load readings differently, to serve its --load-average feature.
The purpose of the --load-average parameter is to provide guidance to Make as to when it can start new threads; causing Make to share CPU resources with other applications (and within itself) more elegantly.
In Linux, the semantic of this parameter is very close to its name: new Make threads are allowed when the load-average, as reported by the kernel (I'm assuming this is the "one minute" load average, though it could be the five minutes one), is less than the parameter value.
In Windows, Make computes the load average from the weighed-average of the CPU Load (as reported by GetSystemTimes function) and the memory load (eg. from GlobalMemoryStatusEx function).
On Windows - nothing, apparently. This is a UNIX term: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load_%28computing%29
My copy of Cygwin reports zero load averages when I run the uptime command. I don't think there is a quick way of calculating this on Windows; it was asked on the Cygwin mailing list in the past.
In other words: it's not implemented, so it's always zero.
Here's the implementation of getloadavg, directly from the GNU Make 3.81 sources:
# if !defined (LDAV_DONE) && (defined (__MSDOS__) || defined (WINDOWS32))
# define LDAV_DONE
/* A faithful emulation is going to have to be saved for a rainy day. */
for ( ; elem < nelem; elem++)
{
loadavg[elem] = 0.0;
}
# endif /* __MSDOS__ || WINDOWS32 */
I haven't checked on newer versions of GNU make but I doubt it's changed.