[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4ADF57D7.7010808@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:49:59 -0700
From: "Kok, Auke" <auke-jan.h.kok@...el.com>
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
CC: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>,
"discuss@...sWatts.org" <discuss@...sWatts.org>,
"openipmi-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net"
<openipmi-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Corey Minyard <minyard@....org>
Subject: Re: [Discuss] [PATCH] ipmi: use round_jiffies on timers to reduce
timer overhead/wakeups
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 10:28:22 -0700
> Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com> wrote:
>
>> From: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>
>>
>> Use a round_jiffies() variant to reduce overhead of timer
>> wakeups. This causes the ipmi timers to occur at the same
>> time as other timers (per CPU).
>>
>> Typical powertop for /ipmi/ (2.6.31, before patch):
>> 11.4% (247.4) kipmi0 : __mod_timer (process_timeout)
>> 0.6% ( 13.1) <interrupt> : ipmi_si
>> 0.5% ( 10.0) <kernel core> : __mod_timer (ipmi_timeout)
>>
>> powertop for /ipmi/, 2.6.31, after patch:
>> 10.8% (247.6) kipmi0 : __mod_timer (process_timeout)
>> 0.3% ( 6.9) <interrupt> : ipmi_si
>> 0.0% ( 1.0) <kernel core> : __mod_timer (ipmi_timeout)
>
> while it is nice that ipmi_si ande the timer wake up less now.... it's
> still rather sad that the 247.6 from kipmi0 are still there..... those
> are a much much bigger issue
obviously :)
Randy, any idea where those are coming from ?
Auke
--
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