[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081031170928.GB10468@linux-os.sc.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 10:09:29 -0700
From: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: sched domains oddness.
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 09:51:51AM -0700, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-10-31 at 12:24 -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> > The attached dmesg comes from my dual core laptop running 2.6.27
> > What's up with all the sched domains transitions at the bottom?
> > This was just a boot up from power off, no suspend/resume or anything funky.
>
> > CPU0 attaching NULL sched-domain.
> > CPU1 attaching NULL sched-domain.
> > CPU0 attaching sched-domain:
> > domain 0: span 0-1 level MC
> > groups: 0 1
> > domain 1: span 0-1 level NODE
> > groups: 0-1
> > CPU1 attaching sched-domain:
> > domain 0: span 0-1 level MC
> > groups: 1 0
> > domain 1: span 0-1 level NODE
> > groups: 0-1
>
> 3x
>
> looks like someone is triggering rebuild_sched_domains(), is something
> poking cpusetfs files or flipping between sched_mc settings?
I remember someone mentioning that some distro's started setting
sched_mc_power_savings to '1' by default during boot. On a dual-core
laptop, this will not give any advantage.
I have to fix the code to not export this tunable, when we have only
socket in the system.
Dave, Is your distro also setting this tunable blindly during boot :(
thanks,
suresh
--
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