[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090319235114.GA18182@kroah.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 16:51:14 -0700
From: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To: Corey Minyard <minyard@....org>
Cc: Martin Wilck <martin.wilck@...itsu-siemens.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
openipmi-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] limit CPU time spent in kipmid
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 04:31:00PM -0500, Corey Minyard wrote:
> Martin, thanks for the patch. I had actually implemented something like
> this before, and it didn't really help very much with the hardware I had,
> so I had abandoned this method. There's even a comment about it in
> si_sm_result smi_event_handler(). Maybe making it tunable is better, I
> don't know. But I'm afraid this will kill performance on a lot of systems.
>
> Did you test throughput on this? The main problem people had without
> kipmid was that things like firmware upgrades took a *long* time; adding
> kipmid improved speeds by an order of magnitude or more.
>
> It's my opinion that if you want this interface to work efficiently with
> good performance, you should design the hardware to be used efficiently by
> using interrupts (which are supported and disable kipmid). With the way
> the hardware is defined, you cannot have both good performance and low CPU
> usage without interrupts.
>
> It may be possible to add an option to choose between performance and
> efficiency, but it will have to default to performance.
I would think that very infrequent things, like firmware upgrades, would
not take priority over a long-term "keep the cpu busy" type system, like
what we currently have.
Is there any way to switch between the different modes dynamically?
I like the idea of this change, as I have got a lot of complaints lately
about kipmi taking way too much cpu time up on idle systems, messing up
some user's process accounting rules in their management systems. But I
worry about making it a module parameter, why can't this be a
"self-tunable" thing?
thanks,
greg k-h
--
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