I use the following one liner for regression tests of the cpufreq governor and
friends:
tfoerste@n22 ~ $ time factor 819734028463158891
which usually needs 5.5 secs to complete at 1.7 GHz of my pentium M processor.
With the current git sources (commit cfa76f0 at Sat Oct 20 20:19:15 2007 -0700)
instead this command needs 3 times longer if I run the "distributed.net client"
as a background process with nice level 19 b/c the cpu frequency still stays
at 600 MHz.
After stopping dnetc the cpu frequency governor ondemand works as expected again.
Tested at my ThinkPad T41 with stable Gentoo:
tfoerste@n22 ~ $ grep -e ^CONFIG_ACPI -e ^CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_GOV_ ~/devel/linux-2.6/.config
CONFIG_ACPI=y
CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP=y
CONFIG_ACPI_PROCFS=y
CONFIG_ACPI_PROC_EVENT=y
CONFIG_ACPI_AC=m
CONFIG_ACPI_BATTERY=m
CONFIG_ACPI_BUTTON=m
CONFIG_ACPI_VIDEO=m
CONFIG_ACPI_FAN=m
CONFIG_ACPI_PROCESSOR=m
CONFIG_ACPI_THERMAL=m
CONFIG_ACPI_BLACKLIST_YEAR=0
CONFIG_ACPI_EC=y
CONFIG_ACPI_POWER=y
CONFIG_ACPI_SYSTEM=y
CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_GOV_PERFORMANCE=y
CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_GOV_POWERSAVE=m
CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_GOV_ONDEMAND=y
--
MfG/Sincerely
Toralf F?rster
pgp finger print: 7B1A 07F4 EC82 0F90 D4C2 8936 872A E508 7DB6 9DA3
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 13:16:14 +0200 Toralf F?rster <[email protected]> wrote:
> I use the following one liner for regression tests of the cpufreq governor and
> friends:
>
> tfoerste@n22 ~ $ time factor 819734028463158891
>
> which usually needs 5.5 secs to complete at 1.7 GHz of my pentium M processor.
>
> With the current git sources (commit cfa76f0 at Sat Oct 20 20:19:15 2007 -0700)
> instead this command needs 3 times longer if I run the "distributed.net client"
> as a background process with nice level 19 b/c the cpu frequency still stays
> at 600 MHz.
> After stopping dnetc the cpu frequency governor ondemand works as expected again.
>
> Tested at my ThinkPad T41 with stable Gentoo:
>
> tfoerste@n22 ~ $ grep -e ^CONFIG_ACPI -e ^CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_GOV_ ~/devel/linux-2.6/.config
> CONFIG_ACPI=y
> CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP=y
> CONFIG_ACPI_PROCFS=y
> CONFIG_ACPI_PROC_EVENT=y
> CONFIG_ACPI_AC=m
> CONFIG_ACPI_BATTERY=m
> CONFIG_ACPI_BUTTON=m
> CONFIG_ACPI_VIDEO=m
> CONFIG_ACPI_FAN=m
> CONFIG_ACPI_PROCESSOR=m
> CONFIG_ACPI_THERMAL=m
> CONFIG_ACPI_BLACKLIST_YEAR=0
> CONFIG_ACPI_EC=y
> CONFIG_ACPI_POWER=y
> CONFIG_ACPI_SYSTEM=y
> CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_GOV_PERFORMANCE=y
> CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_GOV_POWERSAVE=m
> CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_GOV_ONDEMAND=y
>
And 2.6.23 was OK?
Is this problem still present in Linus's current tree?
Thanks.
Am Montag, 29. Oktober 2007 schrieb Andrew Morton:
> On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 13:16:14 +0200 Toralf F?rster <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I use the following one liner for regression tests of the cpufreq governor and
> > friends:
> >
> > tfoerste@n22 ~ $ time factor 819734028463158891
> >
> > which usually needs 5.5 secs to complete at 1.7 GHz of my pentium M processor.
> >
> > With the current git sources (commit cfa76f0 at Sat Oct 20 20:19:15 2007 -0700)
> > instead this command needs 3 times longer if I run the "distributed.net client"
> > as a background process with nice level 19 b/c the cpu frequency still stays
> > at 600 MHz.
> > After stopping dnetc the cpu frequency governor ondemand works as expected again.
> >
> > Tested at my ThinkPad T41 with stable Gentoo:
> >
> > tfoerste@n22 ~ $ grep -e ^CONFIG_ACPI -e ^CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_GOV_ ~/devel/linux-2.6/.config
> > CONFIG_ACPI=y
> > CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP=y
> > CONFIG_ACPI_PROCFS=y
> > CONFIG_ACPI_PROC_EVENT=y
> > CONFIG_ACPI_AC=m
> > CONFIG_ACPI_BATTERY=m
> > CONFIG_ACPI_BUTTON=m
> > CONFIG_ACPI_VIDEO=m
> > CONFIG_ACPI_FAN=m
> > CONFIG_ACPI_PROCESSOR=m
> > CONFIG_ACPI_THERMAL=m
> > CONFIG_ACPI_BLACKLIST_YEAR=0
> > CONFIG_ACPI_EC=y
> > CONFIG_ACPI_POWER=y
> > CONFIG_ACPI_SYSTEM=y
> > CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_GOV_PERFORMANCE=y
> > CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_GOV_POWERSAVE=m
> > CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_GOV_ONDEMAND=y
> >
>
> And 2.6.23 was OK?
>
> Is this problem still present in Linus's current tree?
>
> Thanks.
>
Hello,
with -rc1 the problem went away :-)
--
MfG/Sincerely
Toralf F?rster
pgp finger print: 7B1A 07F4 EC82 0F90 D4C2 8936 872A E508 7DB6 9DA3
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 00:02:43 -0700
Andrew Morton <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> And 2.6.23 was OK?
>
> Is this problem still present in Linus's current tree?
and did you enable the "ignore nice levels" switch in sysfs ondemand
directory?
--
If you want to reach me at my work email, use [email protected]
For development, discussion and tips for power savings,
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
Am Montag, 29. Oktober 2007 schrieb Arjan van de Ven:
> On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 00:02:43 -0700
> Andrew Morton <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> > And 2.6.23 was OK?
> >
> > Is this problem still present in Linus's current tree?
>
> and did you enable the "ignore nice levels" switch in sysfs ondemand
> directory?
>
Oh no,
if you mean /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/ondemand/ignore_nice_load
I didn't changed anything, instead I just used the same .config file, rebooted
into the new kernel and ran the test again.
--
MfG/Sincerely
Toralf F?rster
pgp finger print: 7B1A 07F4 EC82 0F90 D4C2 8936 872A E508 7DB6 9DA3