Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="us-ascii"
From: Andrew Theurer <habanero@us.ibm.com>
Reply-To: habanero@us.ibm.com
To: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: HT and idle = poll
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 23:18:04 -0600
User-Agent: KMail/1.4.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Message-Id: <200303052318.04647.habanero@us.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1037
Lines: 24

The test:  kernbench (average of  kernel compiles5) with -j2 on a 2 physical/4 
logical P4 system.  This is on 2.5.64-HTschedB3:

idle != poll: Elapsed: 136.692s User: 249.846s System: 30.596s CPU: 204.8%
idle  = poll: Elapsed: 161.868s User: 295.738s System: 32.966s CPU: 202.6%

A 15.5% increase in compile times.

So, don't use idle=poll with HT when you know your workload has idle time!  I 
have not tried oprofile, but it stands to reason that this would be a 
problem.  There's no point in using idle=poll with oprofile and HT anyway, as 
the cpu utilization is totally wrong with HT to begin with (more on that 
later).

Presumably a logical cpu polling while idle uses too many cpu resources 
unnecessarily and significantly affects the performance of its sibling. 

-Andrew Theurer

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/