[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101001180923.GB9353@suse.de>
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 11:09:23 -0700
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>
To: tmhikaru@...il.com
Cc: Florian Mickler <florian@...kler.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: PROBLEM: Unusually high load average when idle in 2.6.35,
2.6.35.1 and later
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 11:53:21PM -0400, tmhikaru@...il.com wrote:
<snip>
> Author: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
> Date: Thu Apr 22 21:50:19 2010 +0200
>
> sched: Cure load average vs NO_HZ woes
>
> Chase reported that due to us decrementing calc_load_task prematurely
> (before the next LOAD_FREQ sample), the load average could be scewed
> by as much as the number of CPUs in the machine.
>
> This patch, based on Chase's patch, cures the problem by keeping the
> delta of the CPU going into NO_HZ idle separately and folding that in
> on the next LOAD_FREQ update.
>
> This restores the balance and we get strict LOAD_FREQ period samples.
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
> Acked-by: Chase Douglas <chase.douglas@...onical.com>
> LKML-Reference: <1271934490.1776.343.camel@...top>
> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Care to resend this and cc: Peter, Chase, and Ingo?
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