[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080927204834.GA31650@elte.hu>
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2008 22:48:34 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Sitsofe Wheeler <sitsofe@...oo.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: How how latent should non-preemptive scheduling be?
* Sitsofe Wheeler <sitsofe@...oo.com> wrote:
> Logs with the filtering on can be seen here (15Mbytes decompressed each):
> http://sucs.org/~sits/test/eeepc-debug/20080923/latency_trace.gz
> http://sucs.org/~sits/test/eeepc-debug/20080923/trace.txt.gz
>
> It looks like lots of acpi state is created and deleted...
yeah. The latency starts here:
cat-5901 0dNh. 1us : default_wake_function (__wake_up_common)
cat-5901 0.Nh. 2us : kill_fasync (snd_pcm_period_elapsed)
[...]
and ends here:
[...]
cat-5901 0.N.. 270501us+: mutex_lock (acpi_ec_transaction)
cat-5901 0d... 270507us : __cond_resched (_cond_resched)
270 _milliseconds_ later. That's excessive.
The main overhead is starting here:
cat-5901 0.N.. 167us : acpi_ds_result_push (acpi_ds_exec_end_op)
lots of ACPI code executed ...
does it get better if you have CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY=y enabled? That
_should_ break up this section neatly. If it doesnt then please add a
might_sleep() check to kernel/kernel/semaphore.c's down_timeout()
function - that is called a number of times in this trace.
Ingo
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists