[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100420040708.1ae390b1@infradead.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 04:07:08 -0700
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To: Thomas Renninger <trenn@...e.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
mingo@...e.hu, peterz@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
davej@...hat.com, cpufreq@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/7] ondemand: Solve the big performance issue with
ondemand during disk IO
On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 11:29:02 +0200
Thomas Renninger <trenn@...e.de> wrote:
> Have you looked at:
> /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/cpuinfo_transition_latency
> and
> /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/ondemand/sampling_rate
> Transition latency comes from ACPI tables and sampling rate depends
> on it.
of course I have; in practice on systems i use it is always a 10
milliseconds interval, which is the minimum it gets.
Yes this was a bug, no it wasn't the bug here ;-)
> Reducing the sampling rate, significantly reduces performance loss
while it does, it is not nearly sufficient for the alternating IO/CPU
cases I've looked at. I've looked at many timecharts for various IO/CPU
workloads, including my normal own use as well as Andrews and the CPU
busy periods are in the 1 - 20 msec range between IOs most of the time,
for which a 10 msec sampling is obviously problematic.
--
Arjan van de Ven Intel Open Source Technology Centre
For development, discussion and tips for power savings,
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
--
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