[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <877hfueosm.fsf@free.fr>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 17:53:13 +0100
From: Damien Wyart <damien.wyart@...e.fr>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
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)
* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> [101130 15:59]:
> OK, so here's a less crufty patch that gets the same result on my
> machine, load drops down to 0.00 after a while.
Seems OK too here.
> It seems a bit slower to reach 0.00, but that could be because
> I actually changed the load computation for NO_HZ=n as well, I added
> a rounding factor in calc_load(), we no longer truncate the division.
Yes, really feels slower, but in the two configurations as you write.
Then this is a matter of convention, do not know which version is more
"correct" or "natural", but this is coherent in the two modes (HZ and
NO_HZ).
Do you plan to push this one to upstream/stable, or do you plan further
modifications?
Thanks for your patches,
--
Damien Wyart
--
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