[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1302800221.3248.39.camel@edumazet-laptop>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 18:57:01 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com>,
Wei Gu <wei.gu@...csson.com>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"Kirsher, Jeffrey T" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Subject: Re: Low performance Intel 10GE NIC (3.2.10) on 2.6.38 Kernel
Le jeudi 14 avril 2011 à 18:56 +0200, Peter Zijlstra a écrit :
> On Thu, 2011-04-14 at 09:42 -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>
> > I'm doing some more digging into this now. One thought that occurred to
> > me is that if the patch you mention is having some sort of effect this
> > could be a sign of perhaps a kernel timer or scheduling problem.
>
> Right, so the removal of the NO_HZ throttle will allow the CPU to go
> into C states more often, this could result in longer wake-up times for
> IRQs.
>
> We reverted because:
> - it caused significant battery drain due to not going into C states
> often enough, and
> - its a much better idea to implement these things in the idle
> governor since it already has the job of guestimating the idle
> duration.
>
> I really can't remember back far enough to even come up with a theory of
> why kernels prior to merging the NO_HZ throttle would not exhibit this
> problem.
>
>
>
Normally, Wei Gu already asked to not use C states.
http://h20000.www2.hp.com/bc/docs/support/SupportManual/c01804533/c01804533.pdf
How can we/he check this ?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists