linux-kernel - Re: Request for assistance - excessive kworker CPU wakeups

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 25 Jan 2012 19:31:54 -0500
From:	"David H. Durgee" <dhdurgee@...izon.net>
To:	Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@...omium.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Request for assistance - excessive kworker CPU wakeups

Mandeep Singh Baines wrote:
> David H. Durgee (dhdurgee@...izon.net) wrote:
>> Mandeep Singh Baines wrote:
>>> On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 1:27 PM, David H. Durgee<dhdurgee@...izon.net>   wrote:
>>>> I recently purchased a Lenovo IdeaPad Z560, model 09143YU, and as I am not a
>>>> Windows fan I installed Linux Mint 11 Katya x64 to use instead of the
>>>> supplied W7.  I was encountering a known hang and had to upgrade to a later
>>>> kernel, so I am now using the 2.6.38-11-generic #50-Ubuntu SMP Mon Sep 12
>>>> 21:17:25 UTC 2011 x86_64 kernel.
>>>>
>>>> I had my first occasion to use the laptop for an extended period for the
>>>> first time over the Thanksgiving holiday and I found it needed to be tuned.
>>>>   I downloaded powertop and used it to discover where my problems were.
>>>>   After addressing excessive i915 interrupts due to DRI the next most
>>>> frequent cause of CPU wakeups is a kworker on the system.  A search lead to
>>>> a post by Tejun, indicating the need to trace such issues. Running the trace
>>>> showed that 1933 of 2748 events were of the form:
>>>>
>>>> <idle>-0     [000] 22005.355346: workqueue_queue_work: work
>>>> struct=ffff8800bb411188 function=do_dbs_timer workqueue=ffff88012b5d2c00
>>>> req_cpu=0 cpu=0
>>>>
>>>> Tejun indicated that this is a workitem used by cpufreq and likely caused by
>>>> something else hitting the CPU frequently.  So how do I diagnose this
>>>> further and isolate the cause for correction?
>>>>
>>>> If you would like a summary of this, download this spreadsheet:
>>>>
>>>> http://home.comcast.net/%7Eddurgee/Tracelog.ods
>>>>
>>>> If you would like to inspect the trace log itself:
>>>>
>>>> http://home.comcast.net/%7Eddurgee/tracelog.zip
>>>>
>>> Hi Dave,
>>>
>>> I don't know the cpufreq code that well, but it seem that this
>>> workqueue is schedule periodically. You
>>> can examine the sampling rate via /sys:
>>>
>>> $ grep "" /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpufreq/ondemand/sampling_rate*
>>>
>>> Just curious, are you running nohz:
>>>
>>> $ dmesg | grep -i nohz
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Mandeep
>> dhdurgee@...-Z560 ~/Downloads $ grep ""
>> /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpufreq/ondemand/sampling_rate*
>> /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpufreq/ondemand/sampling_rate:10000
>> /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpufreq/ondemand/sampling_rate_max:4294967295
>> /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpufreq/ondemand/sampling_rate_min:10000
>> dhdurgee@...-Z560 ~/Downloads $ dmesg | grep -i nohz
>> dhdurgee@...-Z560 ~/Downloads $
>>
>> Does this explain what I am seeing?  Does this square with the
>> observations in my spreadsheet?  Does this suggest a means of
>> reducing these excessive wakeups?  Is there more information I can
>> provide to suggest a course of action?
>>
> IIUC, you should be seeing 100 such events per second * number of CPUs.
> Is that what you are seeing? You could reduce this by changing HZ. Maybe
> change to CONFIG_HZ_100 in your .config from CONFIG_HZ_1000. That
> should reduce the number of events by a factor of 10.
>
> Regards,
> Mandeep
Looking at /boot/config-2.6.38-11-generic I see the following:

CONFIG_HZ_100=y
# CONFIG_HZ_250 is not set
# CONFIG_HZ_300 is not set
# CONFIG_HZ_1000 is not set
CONFIG_HZ=100

So it appears that this is already set.  Looking at the raw data I 
collected and summarized I see 22005.355346 in the first record and 
22031.110816 in the last record.  Am I correct in interpreting this to 
mean that 25.76 seconds elapsed while data was collected?  During the 
collection I saw 1,993 total idle do_dbs_timer calls.  I saw a total of 
2,754 wakeups for all events.  You can get the details from the files I 
referenced.

Dave
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/