[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1452783422.3611.8.camel@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 15:57:02 +0100
From: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Clark Williams <williams@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] 4.4-rc6-rt1
On Thu, 2016-01-14 at 15:30 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jan 2016, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2016-01-14 at 15:17 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > > * Sebastian Andrzej Siewior | 2016-01-13 18:58:45 [+0100]:
> > >
> > > > This is due to NO_HZ as far as I can tell. My AMD A10 in idle
> mode
> > > > has
> > > > 0.7% utilisation of ksoftirqd/ with CONFIG_HZ_PERIODIC and with
> > > > CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL it shows about 25% on all CPU threads.
> > >
> > > This should fixed it:
> > >
> > > --- a/kernel/time/timer.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/time/timer.c
> > > @@ -1453,7 +1453,7 @@ u64 get_next_timer_interrupt(unsigned long
> > > basej, u64 basem)
> > > * the base lock to check when the next timer is pending and
> > > so
> > > * we assume the next jiffy.
> > > */
> > > - return basej;
> > > + return basem + TICK_NSEC;
> > > #endif
> > > spin_lock(&base->lock);
> > > if (base->active_timers) {
> >
> > That's what I had done to stop the screaming interrupt, but box
> still
> > behaved very badly.
>
> If you turn off CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL and switch to NO_HZ_IDLE is it
> still bad?
I didn't have CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL enabled, it was CONFIG_NO_HZ_IDLE.
-Mike
Powered by blists - more mailing lists