[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130411120358.GQ3658@sgi.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 07:03:58 -0500
From: Robin Holt <holt@....com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Robin Holt <holt@....com>, Russ Anderson <rja@....com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@...aro.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Do not force shutdown/reboot to boot cpu.
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 02:00:27PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Robin Holt <holt@....com> wrote:
>
> > > Ok, so it looks profilable.
> > >
> > > The result above is not surprising: most CPUs sit in idle and don't do anything,
> > > while the loop goes on, right?
> > >
> > > The interesting thing to profile would be the parallel bring-down, with the
> > > simplest global lock solution you mentioned. In that case most CPUs should be
> > > doing 'something' all the time - maybe spinning on the lock, maybe something else,
> > > right?
> >
> > Again, mostly looks idle.
>
> Forgot to suggest:
>
> perf record -a /sbin/reboot
I used perf record -a /sbin/reboot -f -d -n
Robin
>
> ... to capture remote CPU activity too.
>
> > Events: 5M cycles
> > 31.69% swapper [kernel.kallsyms] [k] update_cfs_rq_blocked_load
> > 14.22% swapper [kernel.kallsyms] [k] load_balance
> > 12.95% swapper [kernel.kallsyms] [k] ktime_get
> > 4.64% swapper [kernel.kallsyms] [k] idle_cpu
> > 3.46% swapper [kernel.kallsyms] [k] uv_read_rtc
> > 2.26% swapper [kernel.kallsyms] [k] ktime_get_update_offsets
> > 2.25% swapper [kernel.kallsyms] [k] rcu_check_callbacks
> > 1.72% swapper [kernel.kallsyms] [k] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave
> > 1.57% swapper [kernel.kallsyms] [k] native_write_msr_safe
> > 1.53% swapper [kernel.kallsyms] [k] native_safe_halt
> > 1.52% swapper [kernel.kallsyms] [k] apic_timer_interrupt
> > 1.52% swapper [kernel.kallsyms] [k] update_blocked_averages
> > 1.51% swapper [kernel.kallsyms] [k] __lock_text_start
> > 1.48% swapper [kernel.kallsyms] [k] rcu_process_gp_end
> > 1.40% swapper [kernel.kallsyms] [k] rcu_process_callbacks
> > 1.19% reboot [kernel.kallsyms] [k] kmem_cache_alloc_node
> > 0.63% swapper [kernel.kallsyms] [k] check_for_new_grace_period
> > 0.58% swapper [kernel.kallsyms] [k] rebalance_domains
> > 0.55% swapper [kernel.kallsyms] [k] cpumask_next_and
> > 0.54% swapper [kernel.kallsyms] [k] __tick_nohz_idle_enter
> > 0.53% swapper [kernel.kallsyms] [k] perf_adjust_freq_unthr_context
> > 0.49% swapper [kernel.kallsyms] [k] _raw_spin_lock
>
> If even perf record -a shows a mostly idle system, then the overhead must be in
> sleep/wakeup latencies - for that the next step would be to figure out where all
> the waiting happens, for example via call-graph context-switch profiling:
>
> perf stat --null perf record -a -g -e sched:sched_switch /sbin/reboot
>
> (the perf stat --null will tell us the runtime of the whole operation.)
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ingo
--
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