should I believe lload?

[Chip Rosenthal]

I'm questioning some of the numbers I get from lload.  Two things in
particular.  First, lload counts itself as a runnable process.  Wouldn't
it be more realistic if it skipped itself?  Second, I find that every
process blocked for input from a FIFO (named pipe) is added to the n_disk
count, which causes three of my daemons to appear in the load average.
As a result, I think the number produced by lload should be four less
than what is actually being reported.  Am I missing something here?
-- 
Chip Rosenthal / chip at vector.Dallas.TX.US / Dallas Semiconductor / 214-450-5337
"I wish you'd put that starvation box down and go to bed" - Albert Collins' Mom