[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0hd9HKUHzEnnBnp4-DmcHXgy1GgMK-st=Bs36rxzYR5xw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 15:09:36 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To: Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@...vell.com>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: regression caused by 08f511fd41c3 ("cpufreq: Reduce
cpufreq_update_util() overhead a bit")
On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 10:40 AM, Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@...vell.com> wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 16:30:23 +0800 Jisheng Zhang wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I found one regression: In an idle system, wakeups/s (reported by powertop)
>> is increased a lot, e.g on a intel snb 4 core platform, the wakeup event
>> number is increased from 8 wakeups/s to 24 wakeup/s. bisect points to
>> this commit. I could send detailed bisect log if it's wanted.
>>
>
> more information maybe useful: after the commit, the top two wakeup source
> are
>
> Process [rcu_sched]
>
> Timer tick_sched_timer
And what was there before the commit?
Granted, I'm not seeing this on my systems.
Paul, Peter, any ideas about what may be going on here?
Thanks,
Rafael
Powered by blists - more mailing lists