[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150601081429.GP19282@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 10:14:29 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
ktkhai@...allels.com
Subject: Re: sched_setscheduler() vs idle_balance() race
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 08:48:56PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> P.S. intel_idle is not all that wonderful on this box.
>
> - 78.31% [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_lock ▒
> - _raw_spin_lock ▒
> - 94.91% tick_broadcast_oneshot_control ▒
Your DL980 G7 has E7-4800 parts in, right? Which if Wikipedia is
correct, resolves to a Nehalem-EX.
Now the NHM-EX has a fun 'feature' that for (some?) idle states the
local timer stops, so we have to revert back to a global broadcast
timer.
Now go count the number of cpus on your box and then imagine a global
spinlock, oh wait, you already found it ^ :-)
--
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