On Tue, 22 Jul 2003, Andy Farkas wrote:
> > Mr Wolf,
>
> Heh, you noticed :)
>
> > > Currently (cpu_idle_hlt=1) the load is fluctuating between 2.20 and 3.60
> > > every few minutes! (xload looks like a graph of a sinewave)
> > >
> > > If I set cpu_idle_hlt back to 0 the load goes back to a st
> Mr Wolf,
Heh, you noticed :)
> > Currently (cpu_idle_hlt=1) the load is fluctuating between 2.20 and 3.60
> > every few minutes! (xload looks like a graph of a sinewave)
> >
> > If I set cpu_idle_hlt back to 0 the load goes back to a steady 3.80 where
> > it should be.
>
> define "should".
Whe
On Tue, 22 Jul 2003, Andy Farkas wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Jul 2003, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > Andy Farkas wrote:
> > > On Tue, 8 Jul 2003, Julian Elischer wrote:
> > > > It looks tp me that if we make a thread runnable
> > > > and there is a processor in the idle loop, the idle processor should be
> >
On Wed, 9 Jul 2003, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Andy Farkas wrote:
> > On Tue, 8 Jul 2003, Julian Elischer wrote:
> > > It looks tp me that if we make a thread runnable
> > > and there is a processor in the idle loop, the idle processor should be
> > > kicked in some way to make it go get the newly runn
Certain operational sequences fair really badly when cpu_idle_hlt
is turned off, and its definitely due to contention. I've seen this
quite a lot. I have some numbers below.
Generally speaking I think its a good idea to wake up a HLTed cpu, but
it has to be done intelligently
On 10-Jul-2003 Julian Elischer wrote:
> BTW in cpu_idle()
>
>#ifdef SMP
> if (mp_grab_cpu_hlt())
> return;
>#endif
>
>
> whta gain is there in this returning.. it will anyhow if there is work
> to do, and sched_runnable is called either way..
>
> couldn't it just be
>
On Thu, 10 Jul 2003, John Baldwin wrote:
> > 307.504u 93.581s 4:23.22 152.3% 3047+5913k 29+1055io 8pf+0w
> >
> > What is so stunning is the massive increase in user time
> > for the case where the cpu is not being idled.
> > I'm hoping this is a statistical artifact of some sort..
>
> I don't
On 10-Jul-2003 Julian Elischer wrote:
> OK so I return with some numbers
>
>
> On Tue, 8 Jul 2003, John Baldwin wrote:
>
>>
>> On 08-Jul-2003 Julian Elischer wrote:
>> > It looks tp me that if we make a thread runnable
>> > and there is a processor in the idle loop, the idle processor shou
John Baldwin wrote:
> On 09-Jul-2003 Terry Lambert wrote:
> > I thought that there was either a SPARC or Alpha box where Poul
> > had to mess with the divider because they were delivered round
> > robin, instead?
>
> No. The only anomaly I know of is that on Alpha 2100's, the clock
> interrupt se
On Wed, 9 Jul 2003, Julian Elischer wrote:
> OK so I return with some numbers
>
>
> On Tue, 8 Jul 2003, John Baldwin wrote:
>
> >
> > On 08-Jul-2003 Julian Elischer wrote:
> > > It looks tp me that if we make a thread runnable
> > > and there is a processor in the idle loop, the idle pro
OK so I return with some numbers
On Tue, 8 Jul 2003, John Baldwin wrote:
>
> On 08-Jul-2003 Julian Elischer wrote:
> > It looks tp me that if we make a thread runnable
> > and there is a processor in the idle loop, the idle processor should be
> > kicked in some way to make it go get the ne
On 09-Jul-2003 Terry Lambert wrote:
> John Baldwin wrote:
>> This is why HLT is not enabled in SMP by default (or at least was,
>> it may be turned on now). Given that the clock interrupts are
>> effectively broadcast to all CPU's one way or another for all
>> arch's (that I know of), you will ne
Andy Farkas wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Jul 2003, Julian Elischer wrote:
> > It looks tp me that if we make a thread runnable
> > and there is a processor in the idle loop, the idle processor should be
> > kicked in some way to make it go get the newly runnable thread.
>
> Is this what's happenning to me a
Julian Elischer wrote:
> It looks tp me that if we make a thread runnable
> and there is a processor in the idle loop, the idle processor should be
> kicked in some way to make it go get the newly runnable thread.
>
> If the processors are halting in the idle loop however, it may take
> quite a wh
John Baldwin wrote:
> This is why HLT is not enabled in SMP by default (or at least was,
> it may be turned on now). Given that the clock interrupts are
> effectively broadcast to all CPU's one way or another for all
> arch's (that I know of), you will never halt more than the interval
> between c
On Tue, 8 Jul 2003, John Baldwin wrote:
>
> On 08-Jul-2003 Julian Elischer wrote:
> > It looks tp me that if we make a thread runnable
> > and there is a processor in the idle loop, the idle processor should be
> > kicked in some way to make it go get the newly runnable thread.
> >
> > If the
On Tue, 8 Jul 2003, Julian Elischer wrote:
> It looks tp me that if we make a thread runnable
> and there is a processor in the idle loop, the idle processor should be
> kicked in some way to make it go get the newly runnable thread.
Is this what's happenning to me an my setiathomes?
--
:{ [EM
On 08-Jul-2003 Julian Elischer wrote:
> It looks tp me that if we make a thread runnable
> and there is a processor in the idle loop, the idle processor should be
> kicked in some way to make it go get the newly runnable thread.
>
> If the processors are halting in the idle loop however, it may t
18 matches
Mail list logo
