[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100520111753.GA2264@isilmar-3.linta.de>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 13:17:53 +0200
From: Dominik Brodowski <linux@...inikbrodowski.net>
To: Nigel Cunningham <nigel@...onice.net>
Cc: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.jf.intel.com>,
Venkatesh Pallipadi <venki@...gle.com>,
Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
ego@...ibm.com, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Nigel Cunningham <ncunningham@...a.org.au>
Subject: Re: [patch 0/7] sched: change nohz idle load balancing logic to
push model
Hey,
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 09:07:42PM +1000, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> "Load balancing tick" is still number one in my powertop list of top
> causes of wakeups (sitting at ~60 to 80 per second as I type this, with
> ~170 wakeups per second total). Comparing this to the numbers I posted
> earlier, we seem to have a win.
>
> I do wonder, though, whether further work could still be done. If I take
> one core offline, for example, I'm still getting load balancing ticks.
> Intuitively, I'd expect there to be no need for them with only one core
> available. But maybe I'm just ignorant of what's going on.
Are you using HZ=1000, and is the CPU active ~ 6-8 % ? If so, is it just the
regular timer tick while the CPU is active, and so not a real "wakeup"? (Or
possibly double the number if both CPUs are active)
Best,
Dominik
--
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