[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1291030726.32004.4.camel@laptop>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 12:38:46 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Damien Wyart <damien.wyart@...e.fr>
Cc: tmhikaru@...il.com, Venkatesh Pallipadi <venki@...gle.com>,
Chase Douglas <chase.douglas@...onical.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Kyle McMartin <kyle@...artin.ca>
Subject: Re: High CPU load when machine is idle (related to PROBLEM:
Unusually high load average when idle in 2.6.35, 2.6.35.1 and later)
On Sun, 2010-11-28 at 12:40 +0100, Damien Wyart wrote:
> Hi,
>
> * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> [2010-11-27 21:15]:
> > How does this work for you? Its hideous but lets start simple.
> > [...]
>
> Doesn't give wrong numbers like initial bug and tentative patches, but
> feels a bit too slow when numbers go up and down. Correct values are
> reached when waiting long enough, but it feels slow.
>
> As I've tested many combinations, maybe this is an impression because
> I do not remember about "normal" delays for the load to rise and fall,
> but this still feels slow.
You can test this by either booting with nohz=off, or builting with
CONFIG_NO_HZ=n and then comparing the result, something like
make O=defconfig clean; while sleep 10; do uptime >> load.log; done &
make -j32 O=defconfig; kill %1
And comparing the curves between the NO_HZ and !NO_HZ kernels.
I'll try and make the patch less hideous ;-)
--
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