Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754631Ab0K3RAK (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Nov 2010 12:00:10 -0500 Received: from mailhost-y9-p4.netultra.net ([195.5.209.114]:63229 "EHLO smtp-delay1.nerim.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751525Ab0K3RAI (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Nov 2010 12:00:08 -0500 X-Greylist: delayed 595 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 12:00:08 EST From: Damien Wyart To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: tmhikaru@gmail.com, Venkatesh Pallipadi , Chase Douglas , Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Kyle McMartin Subject: Re: High CPU load when machine is idle (related to PROBLEM: Unusually high load average when idle in 2.6.35, 2.6.35.1 and later) References: <1288101958.15336.284.camel@twins> <1288381343.1988.12.camel@laptop> <20101109185516.GQ8332@bombadil.infradead.org> <1289329348.2191.69.camel@laptop> <20101110034507.GV8332@bombadil.infradead.org> <1289390424.2191.98.camel@laptop> <20101114051406.GA2050@roll> <20101125133106.GA12914@brouette> <1290693807.2145.36.camel@laptop> <1290888920.32004.1.camel@laptop> <20101128114027.GA2745@brouette> <1291030726.32004.4.camel@laptop> Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 17:49:49 +0100 In-Reply-To: <1291030726.32004.4.camel@laptop> (Peter Zijlstra's message of "Mon, 29 Nov 2010 12:38:46 +0100") Message-ID: <87bp56eoya.fsf@free.fr> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110011 (No Gnus v0.11) Emacs/24.0.50 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1175 Lines: 28 * Peter Zijlstra [101129 12:38]: > > Doesn't give wrong numbers like initial bug and tentative patches, but > > feels a bit too slow when numbers go up and down. Correct values are > > reached when waiting long enough, but it feels slow. > > As I've tested many combinations, maybe this is an impression because > > I do not remember about "normal" delays for the load to rise and fall, > > but this still feels slow. > You can test this by either booting with nohz=off, or builting with > CONFIG_NO_HZ=n and then comparing the result, something like > make O=defconfig clean; while sleep 10; do uptime >> load.log; done & > make -j32 O=defconfig; kill %1 > And comparing the curves between the NO_HZ and !NO_HZ kernels. In fact, timings were very similar between the two configurations, so I guess my feelings were wrong... They were also similar with the next version of the patch. -- Damien Wyart -- 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/