[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <56609956.3030201@hpe.com>
Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2015 14:34:46 -0500
From: Waiman Long <waiman.long@....com>
To: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Yuyang Du <yuyang.du@...el.com>,
Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>, Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
Scott J Norton <scott.norton@....com>,
Douglas Hatch <doug.hatch@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] sched/fair: Move hot load_avg into its own cacheline
On 12/02/2015 11:32 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-12-02 at 13:41 -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
>
>> By doing so, the perf profile became:
>>
>> 9.44% 0.00% java [kernel.vmlinux] [k] smp_apic_timer_interrupt
>> 8.74% 0.01% java [kernel.vmlinux] [k] hrtimer_interrupt
>> 7.83% 0.03% java [kernel.vmlinux] [k] tick_sched_timer
>> 7.74% 0.00% java [kernel.vmlinux] [k] update_process_times
>> 7.27% 0.03% java [kernel.vmlinux] [k] scheduler_tick
>> 5.94% 1.74% java [kernel.vmlinux] [k] task_tick_fair
>> 4.15% 3.92% java [kernel.vmlinux] [k] update_cfs_shares
>>
>> The %cpu time is still pretty high, but it is better than before.
> Is that with the box booted skew_tick=1?
>
> -Mike
>
I haven't tried that kernel parameter. I will try it to see if it can
improve the situation. BTW, will there be other undesirable side effects
of using this other than the increased power consumption as said in the
kernel-parameters.txt file?
Cheers,
Longman
--
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