[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1291138171.32004.1030.camel@laptop>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 18:29:31 +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 Tue, 2010-11-30 at 17:53 +0100, Damien Wyart wrote:
> * 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?
No this is about it, I've written a bit more comments, and I'll need to
come up with a changelog, I'll also wait for Kyle's testers to come
back, but yes, then I'll push it upstream/stable.
--
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