Hi all! Removing dummynet from kernel don't chanage anything, that is releated to load average. The loadavg hold to 0.70 +/- 0.2. (single user : sh + top)
On 4/29/12, Alexander Motin <m...@freebsd.org> wrote: > On 04/29/12 09:09, Ian Smith wrote: >> On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 08:17:38 +0300, Alexander Motin wrote: >> > On 04/29/12 01:53, Oliver Pinter wrote: >> > > Attached the ktr file. This is on core2duo P9400 cpu ( >> > > smbios.system.product="HP ProBook 5310m (WD792EA#ABU)" ). The >> workload >> > > is only a single user boost: sh + top running, but the load >> average is >> > > near 0.5. >> > >> > ktr shows no real load there. But it shows that you are using >> dummynet, that >> > schedules its runs on every hardclock tick. I believe that load you >> see is >> > the result or synchronization between dummynet calls and loadvg >> sampling, >> > both of which called from hardclock. I think removing dummynet from >> equation, >> > should hide this problem and also reduce you laptops power >> consumption. >> > >> > What's about fixing this, it is loadavg sampling algorithm that >> should be >> > changed. Fixing dummynet to not run on every hardclock tick would >> also be >> > great. >> >> Wading in out of my depth, and copying Luigi in case he misses it .. but >> even back in the olden days when HZ defaulted to 100, one was advised to >> use HZ>= 1000 for smooth dummynet traffic shaping dispatch scheduling. >> >> I wonder, with the newer clocks and timers, whether there is another >> clock that could be used for dummynet scheduling, that would not have >> this effect (even if largely cosmetic?) on load average calculation? > > First of all, the easiest solution would be to make dummynet to schedule > callout not automatically, but on first queued packet. I believe that in > case of laptop the queue should be empty most of time and the callout > calls are completely useless there. Luigi promised to look on this once. > > What's about better precision/removing synchronization -- there is > starting GSoC project now (by davide@) to rewrite callout(9) subsystem > to use better precision allowed by new timer drivers. While now it is > possible to get raw access to additional timer hardware available on > some systems, I don't think it is a good idea. > > -- > Alexander Motin > _______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
