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
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 while for the new work to be noticed.
19 matches
Mail list logo
