Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932096AbWJ1Thb (ORCPT ); Sat, 28 Oct 2006 15:37:31 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932100AbWJ1Thb (ORCPT ); Sat, 28 Oct 2006 15:37:31 -0400 Received: from 1wt.eu ([62.212.114.60]:15108 "EHLO 1wt.eu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932096AbWJ1Tha (ORCPT ); Sat, 28 Oct 2006 15:37:30 -0400 Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 21:32:18 +0200 From: Willy Tarreau To: thockin@hockin.org Cc: Andi Kleen , Lee Revell , Luca Tettamanti , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, john stultz Subject: Re: AMD X2 unsynced TSC fix? Message-ID: <20061028193217.GD1709@1wt.eu> References: <1161969308.27225.120.camel@mindpipe> <1162006081.27225.257.camel@mindpipe> <20061028052837.GC1709@1wt.eu> <200610281137.22451.ak@suse.de> <20061028191515.GA1603@1wt.eu> <20061028191800.GA20701@hockin.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20061028191800.GA20701@hockin.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1980 Lines: 41 On Sat, Oct 28, 2006 at 12:18:00PM -0700, thockin@hockin.org wrote: > On Sat, Oct 28, 2006 at 09:15:15PM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > > While gtod is time critical and often appears high on profile lists it is > > > normally not as time critical as you're claiming it is; especially not > > > time critical enough to warrant such radical action. > > > > Yes it was, because the small gain of using a dual core with such > > a workload was clearly lost by that change. IIRC, I reached 25000 > > sessions/s on dual core with TSC if I didn't care about the clock, > > 20000 without TSC, and 18000 on single core+TSC. But with the sniffer, > > it was even worse : I had 500 kpps in dual-core+TSC, 70kpps without > > TSC and 300 kpps with single-core+TSC. Since I had to buy the same > > machines for both uses, this last argument was enough for me to stick > > to a single core. > > Was the problem that they were not synced at poweron or that they would > drift due to power-states? They resynced at power up, but would constantly drift. I don't even know if it was caused by power states. When the machine was loaded, a single task moving across the cores could see its time jump back and forth several times a second by an offset sometimes close to +2/-2s. > Did you try running with idle=poll, to avoid ever entering C1 state (hlt)? Yes, I remember trying such things. I also tried 'nohlt', completely disabling power management, including ACPI, etc... I also tried vanilla kernels as well as severely patched ones, but the problem remained the same in all circumstances, that only 'notsc' could solve. BTW, I've just found a remain of dmesg capture after boot in case you'd like to look for anything in it. Regards, Willy - 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/