Re: [Cooker] why does kapm-idled spin the cpu so often?
Civileme, I will take you up on this offer, and write to you again in a few days. First I will add the FastVram option to my XConfig file, check my hard drive parameters (and specifications) on both machines, and make a list of the daemons running on both machines, and gather the other data you requested. (And I must finish some other work first.) Thank you, Randy Kramer Civileme wrote: Well, the price of the snappy response is that the code for IE is part of the op system. Even if you decide you want to use another browser, you still have the IE code sitting there. There was a utility issued independently that turned off the IE code and then Netsxape on Windows appeared pretty fleet while beforehand it CHUGGED along. Interesting! The price you pay is security. Even with the current IE, I can construct a website that destroys your computer's data in a single step if you open it with IE. Still, even though there is overhead for the walls between the programs and the op system, which are necessary for your protection, your linux machine should be running faster. I would suggest you check the daemons you have activated. Will advise. So, what does hdparm -t /dev/hda say? Run it three times, and run it without any caching programs active (like netscape or squid or konqueror). On the Linux box it says 8.59, 8.57, and 8.70 MBytes / sec. Also, do windows and linux run off the same disk? Is it a disk that can use DMA or udma? I'll let you know later. (Well they are not the same disk, it might be the same model -- I will check.) Do you have a VIA chipset, because the kernel is deliberately disabled of several fast disk features to avoid a hardware bug that is corrupting some windows installations. No, not a VIA chipset -- both motherboards are PC100 using SiS chipset. In other words, compare apples to apples. I will assist if you want to test, but right now your test may not be a fair assessment. many of the things you speak of are disk-speed dependent. I will be back in touch when I have more information. Thanks, Randy Kramer
Re: [Cooker] why does kapm-idled spin the cpu so often?
The reason why konqi starts slower than ie may be related with the fact that linux writes the time you last access a file. I don't think windows does that. This may be why it takes longer. Seeing that harddisk is so increddible fast:) (but you can set this to off) On Monday 16 April 2001 09:43, you wrote: Civileme, I will take you up on this offer, and write to you again in a few days. First I will add the FastVram option to my XConfig file, check my hard drive parameters (and specifications) on both machines, and make a list of the daemons running on both machines, and gather the other data you requested. (And I must finish some other work first.) Thank you, Randy Kramer Civileme wrote: Well, the price of the snappy response is that the code for IE is part of the op system. Even if you decide you want to use another browser, you still have the IE code sitting there. There was a utility issued independently that turned off the IE code and then Netsxape on Windows appeared pretty fleet while beforehand it CHUGGED along. Interesting! The price you pay is security. Even with the current IE, I can construct a website that destroys your computer's data in a single step if you open it with IE. Still, even though there is overhead for the walls between the programs and the op system, which are necessary for your protection, your linux machine should be running faster. I would suggest you check the daemons you have activated. Will advise. So, what does hdparm -t /dev/hda say? Run it three times, and run it without any caching programs active (like netscape or squid or konqueror). On the Linux box it says 8.59, 8.57, and 8.70 MBytes / sec. Also, do windows and linux run off the same disk? Is it a disk that can use DMA or udma? I'll let you know later. (Well they are not the same disk, it might be the same model -- I will check.) Do you have a VIA chipset, because the kernel is deliberately disabled of several fast disk features to avoid a hardware bug that is corrupting some windows installations. No, not a VIA chipset -- both motherboards are PC100 using SiS chipset. In other words, compare apples to apples. I will assist if you want to test, but right now your test may not be a fair assessment. many of the things you speak of are disk-speed dependent. I will be back in touch when I have more information. Thanks, Randy Kramer
Re: [Cooker] why does kapm-idled spin the cpu so often?
Could some of this performance hit be due to the 1 to 1 heavyweight threading model used by Linux ? Both IBM and all the Linux developers I have actually met say this is no longer up to date with POSIX standards and a pain in the butt, especially since it allows disconnected child processes to ignore sig.'s after the parent has crashed. Just a thought ! Owen On Sunday 15 April 2001 1:30 pm, you wrote: Bruce F. Press wrote: Yes, yes, we've heard this before. It is not a satisfactory answer, clearly the "idle" loop in kapm-idled could use a nice sleep(15) or something!! What would be a satisfactory answer? Are you concerned because top shows the system being far busier than it really is? (Then maybe we need a modified top that does not count kapm-idled as processor usage in the "CPU States" percentage.) Do you disbelieve what you are being told (that, IIUC, the time used by kapm-idled is really system idle time that will transparently and instantaneously be applied to a real task if one exists and is ready to run)? If so, do you have any evidence of this -- is your system running slowly or more slowly than you would expect / are used to? I'm serious about these questions, not trying to be a smart ass. The story being told is believable to me. But, I keep hearing that Linux's approach of using all available RAM (not paraphrased accurately) is the best approach, yet in a Windows 95 system with 64 MB of memory I can keep 30 IE 5 windows open and get snappy response switching between windows, yet in a Linux (Mandrake 7.2) system with 128 MB of RAM (and comparable processors, identical motherboards and video cards), everything works much slower even with only one window open, and by the time I get to 15 to 20 open (Konqueror 2.0 or 2.1) windows, the system is like molasses. I think part of the problem is theat kde/konqueror need to learn some of the tricks that Windows uses. I can't describe those tricks accurately, but I see the results. One example: in Windows, if I create a new instance of IE, it appears almost instantly, and the disk doesn't make a peep. In Linux, if I do the same thing in konqueror, the disk starts chugging, and 15 to 45 seconds later the new instance of konqueror appears (and on the wrong desktop if I've switched desktops in the interim). Don't get me wrong, I want Linux to succeed, but I think some new tricks are needed. (Also, in Linux, if I make some wrong keystrokes, it seems that they are all queued up and executed (slowly) one after the other. In Windows, it seems that if I type (or click) the wrong command, but then type (or click) the right command, the initial incorrect command is interrupted and never completed (at least under some circumstances). I know I am not describing this stuff accurately or completely, but it sure makes a Windows system much more responsive than a Linux system. And yes, "until it crashes" -- but I have learned to watch my resource usage in Windows and reboot once or twice a week whether I need to or not, and thus rarely if ever get a crash. Yes, I would prefer not to have to reboot periodically, but I get more done quicker in Windows between reboots that I do in Linux waiting for the molasses. If you (anyone) can collaborate these stories, and help me get them to the right developers, it would be to the benefit of all of us. I don't know whether these things need to be addressed at the OS level or the desktop level, or someplace else, but someone needs to consider them. (And, if the desktop developers tell me they can do nothing, it all depends on the OS developers, I will not believe them. I might believe that the cleanest fix must be done at the OS level (if that's what they tell me), but I believe that fixes can also be done at lower levels. Perhaps performance can be improved by always keeping a buffer of free RAM large enough to immediately clone a konqueror window. At the desktop level, one or more such buffers can be created, even if you do something dumb like precreating an unused instance of konqueror. Then, when an instance of konqueror is requested, display this one immediately (with no disk chugging). Then start the disk chugging to create another free buffer for the next request. I know these kind of things can be done. I am not enough (or any) of a programmer to do them myself. I imagine all the developers are busy doing important things. Are they aware of and planning to implement techniques like these, or better? If this email has any value, please feel free to copy or quote portions of it to anyone, anywhere, anytime. Thanks, Randy Kramer Chmouel Boudjnah wrote: SI Reasoning [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: There are good stretches of the day where my CPU spins at around 50% or more and the process spinning is kapm-idled. This is not a problem in 7.2. --=-=-= http://www.tux.org/lkml/#s14-1: 1.Why is
Re: [Cooker] why does kapm-idled spin the cpu so often?
The thing I'd like to know is if your running an ftp server, apache, mysql, postfix, and three million other services. How do you check? at command line: services --status-all If there are a bunch open, that's part of the problem. Your windows 95 system would expire on bootup if it was trying to run even just a few robust services. Also, be sure you have no hardware misconfigurations/errors. Check every log in /var/log, but importantly /var/log/messages .. also do a dmesg | more and look for IRQ conflicts or other such nastiness. Remember, you are running a system setup for MOST people. If you only want it to do the equivalence of win95 operations (word-processing, solitaire, maybe telnet and some web) then you need to trim it down a LOT. I turn off about 50% of the services enabled by default on my workstations. I also go into /etc/inted.d and make sure ALL services listed there say disabled when you do a more filename here. Also, for security, make sure you have /etc/hosts.deny with the following line in it: ALL:all If you want to run FTP, Apache or other services, you don't want that line, so caveat emptor. If you DO want to run Apache and you already ARE, along with 3 or 4 other services that you want to serve out to others, then shame on you. Win95 can barely run apache when compiled correctly for it. I'm serious about these questions, not trying to be a smart ass. The story being told is believable to me. But, I keep hearing that Linux's approach of using all available RAM (not paraphrased accurately) is the best approach, yet in a Windows 95 system with 64 MB of memory I can keep 30 IE 5 windows open and get snappy response switching between windows, yet in a Linux (Mandrake 7.2) system with 128 MB of RAM (and comparable processors, identical motherboards and video cards), everything works much slower even with only one window open, and by the time I get to 15 to 20 open (Konqueror 2.0 or 2.1) windows, the system is like molasses. I think part of the problem is theat kde/konqueror need to learn some of the tricks that Windows uses. I can't describe those tricks accurately, but I see the results. One example: in Windows, if I create a new instance of IE, it appears almost instantly, and the disk doesn't make a peep. In Linux, if I do the same thing in konqueror, the disk starts chugging, and 15 to 45 seconds later the new instance of konqueror appears (and on the wrong desktop if I've switched desktops in the interim). Don't get me wrong, I want Linux to succeed, but I think some new tricks are needed. (Also, in Linux, if I make some wrong keystrokes, it seems that they are all queued up and executed (slowly) one after the other. In Windows, it seems that if I type (or click) the wrong command, but then type (or click) the right command, the initial incorrect command is interrupted and never completed (at least under some circumstances). I know I am not describing this stuff accurately or completely, but it sure makes a Windows system much more responsive than a Linux system. And yes, "until it crashes" -- but I have learned to watch my resource usage in Windows and reboot once or twice a week whether I need to or not, and thus rarely if ever get a crash. Yes, I would prefer not to have to reboot periodically, but I get more done quicker in Windows between reboots that I do in Linux waiting for the molasses. If you (anyone) can collaborate these stories, and help me get them to the right developers, it would be to the benefit of all of us. I don't know whether these things need to be addressed at the OS level or the desktop level, or someplace else, but someone needs to consider them. (And, if the desktop developers tell me they can do nothing, it all depends on the OS developers, I will not believe them. I might believe that the cleanest fix must be done at the OS level (if that's what they tell me), but I believe that fixes can also be done at lower levels. Perhaps performance can be improved by always keeping a buffer of free RAM large enough to immediately clone a konqueror window. At the desktop level, one or more such buffers can be created, even if you do something dumb like precreating an unused instance of konqueror. Then, when an instance of konqueror is requested, display this one immediately (with no disk chugging). Then start the disk chugging to create another free buffer for the next request. I know these kind of things can be done. I am not enough (or any) of a programmer to do them myself. I imagine all the developers are busy doing important things. Are they aware of and planning to implement techniques like these, or better? If this email has any value, please feel free to copy or quote portions of it to anyone, anywhere, anytime. Thanks, Randy Kramer _ Get your
Re: [Cooker] why does kapm-idled spin the cpu so often?
On Sun, 15 Apr 2001, SI Reasoning wrote: There are good stretches of the day where my CPU spins at around 50% or more and the process spinning is kapm-idled. This is not a problem in 7.2. Go to www.mail-archive.com/cooker%40linux-mandrake.com/ and search for "kapm-idled" ; you'll see millions of discussion around this topic before. Abel Cheung
Re: [Cooker] why does kapm-idled spin the cpu so often?
SI Reasoning [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: There are good stretches of the day where my CPU spins at around 50% or more and the process spinning is kapm-idled. This is not a problem in 7.2. --=-=-= http://www.tux.org/lkml/#s14-1: 1.Why is kapmd using so much CPU time? (REG) Don't worry, it's not stealing valuable CPU time from other processes. It's just consuming idle cycles (normally charged to the idle task, which is displayed differently in top). Normally, when your system is idle, the system idle task is run, and this is shown as idle time (i.e. the "unused" CPU time is not charged to a specific process). With APM (Advanced Power Management), a special idle task (kapmd) is required so that greater power saving techniques can be enabled. So now, the "unused" CPU time is charged to the kapmd task instead. --=-=-= --=-=-= http://olstrans.sourceforge.net/release/OLS2000-apm/OLS2000-apm.html: In 2.2 and before, we basically had a hook into the idle loop, so that if we had APM enabled, we would just tell the BIOS that we're idle. In 2.3, Linus thought it would be a good idea if we had a separate power management idle loop, so (he) we invented the kernel APM daemon and I started getting bug reports about this process that was using all our time, called kapmd. And if you sat there just running top on a 2.3 kernel, the top process, if you're not doing anything else, will be kapmd and it will be using like 85% or 90% or 95% of your CPU time. These people were worried because it was idle: why is it using all of the time? Well actually, it's just that the time is getting accounted to that process. It's not doing anything, it's the idle loop. [26m, 12s] --=-=-= -- MandrakeSoft Inc http://www.chmouel.org --Chmouel
Re: [Cooker] why does kapm-idled spin the cpu so often?
Yes, yes, we've heard this before. It is not a satisfactory answer, clearly the "idle" loop in kapm-idled could use a nice sleep(15) or something!! Chmouel Boudjnah wrote: SI Reasoning [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: There are good stretches of the day where my CPU spins at around 50% or more and the process spinning is kapm-idled. This is not a problem in 7.2. --=-=-= http://www.tux.org/lkml/#s14-1: 1.Why is kapmd using so much CPU time? (REG) Don't worry, it's not stealing valuable CPU time from other processes. It's just consuming idle cycles (normally charged to the idle task, which is displayed differently in top). Normally, when your system is idle, the system idle task is run, and this is shown as idle time (i.e. the "unused" CPU time is not charged to a specific process). With APM (Advanced Power Management), a special idle task (kapmd) is required so that greater power saving techniques can be enabled. So now, the "unused" CPU time is charged to the kapmd task instead. --=-=-= --=-=-= http://olstrans.sourceforge.net/release/OLS2000-apm/OLS2000-apm.html: In 2.2 and before, we basically had a hook into the idle loop, so that if we had APM enabled, we would just tell the BIOS that we're idle. In 2.3, Linus thought it would be a good idea if we had a separate power management idle loop, so (he) we invented the kernel APM daemon and I started getting bug reports about this process that was using all our time, called kapmd. And if you sat there just running top on a 2.3 kernel, the top process, if you're not doing anything else, will be kapmd and it will be using like 85% or 90% or 95% of your CPU time. These people were worried because it was idle: why is it using all of the time? Well actually, it's just that the time is getting accounted to that process. It's not doing anything, it's the idle loop. [26m, 12s] --=-=-= -- MandrakeSoft Inc http://www.chmouel.org --Chmouel begin:vcard n:Press;Bruce tel;fax:410-715-9397 tel;work:443-656-7304 x-mozilla-html:TRUE url:http://www.capita.com org:Capita Technologies Inc. version:2.1 email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:Principal Consultant adr;quoted-printable:;;8830 Stanford Blvd=0D=0ASuite 205;Columbia;MD;;USA x-mozilla-cpt:;-7008 fn:Bruce Press end:vcard
Re: [Cooker] why does kapm-idled spin the cpu so often?
Bruce F. Press wrote: Yes, yes, we've heard this before. It is not a satisfactory answer, clearly the "idle" loop in kapm-idled could use a nice sleep(15) or something!! What would be a satisfactory answer? Are you concerned because top shows the system being far busier than it really is? (Then maybe we need a modified top that does not count kapm-idled as processor usage in the "CPU States" percentage.) Do you disbelieve what you are being told (that, IIUC, the time used by kapm-idled is really system idle time that will transparently and instantaneously be applied to a real task if one exists and is ready to run)? If so, do you have any evidence of this -- is your system running slowly or more slowly than you would expect / are used to? I'm serious about these questions, not trying to be a smart ass. The story being told is believable to me. But, I keep hearing that Linux's approach of using all available RAM (not paraphrased accurately) is the best approach, yet in a Windows 95 system with 64 MB of memory I can keep 30 IE 5 windows open and get snappy response switching between windows, yet in a Linux (Mandrake 7.2) system with 128 MB of RAM (and comparable processors, identical motherboards and video cards), everything works much slower even with only one window open, and by the time I get to 15 to 20 open (Konqueror 2.0 or 2.1) windows, the system is like molasses. I think part of the problem is theat kde/konqueror need to learn some of the tricks that Windows uses. I can't describe those tricks accurately, but I see the results. One example: in Windows, if I create a new instance of IE, it appears almost instantly, and the disk doesn't make a peep. In Linux, if I do the same thing in konqueror, the disk starts chugging, and 15 to 45 seconds later the new instance of konqueror appears (and on the wrong desktop if I've switched desktops in the interim). Don't get me wrong, I want Linux to succeed, but I think some new tricks are needed. (Also, in Linux, if I make some wrong keystrokes, it seems that they are all queued up and executed (slowly) one after the other. In Windows, it seems that if I type (or click) the wrong command, but then type (or click) the right command, the initial incorrect command is interrupted and never completed (at least under some circumstances). I know I am not describing this stuff accurately or completely, but it sure makes a Windows system much more responsive than a Linux system. And yes, "until it crashes" -- but I have learned to watch my resource usage in Windows and reboot once or twice a week whether I need to or not, and thus rarely if ever get a crash. Yes, I would prefer not to have to reboot periodically, but I get more done quicker in Windows between reboots that I do in Linux waiting for the molasses. If you (anyone) can collaborate these stories, and help me get them to the right developers, it would be to the benefit of all of us. I don't know whether these things need to be addressed at the OS level or the desktop level, or someplace else, but someone needs to consider them. (And, if the desktop developers tell me they can do nothing, it all depends on the OS developers, I will not believe them. I might believe that the cleanest fix must be done at the OS level (if that's what they tell me), but I believe that fixes can also be done at lower levels. Perhaps performance can be improved by always keeping a buffer of free RAM large enough to immediately clone a konqueror window. At the desktop level, one or more such buffers can be created, even if you do something dumb like precreating an unused instance of konqueror. Then, when an instance of konqueror is requested, display this one immediately (with no disk chugging). Then start the disk chugging to create another free buffer for the next request. I know these kind of things can be done. I am not enough (or any) of a programmer to do them myself. I imagine all the developers are busy doing important things. Are they aware of and planning to implement techniques like these, or better? If this email has any value, please feel free to copy or quote portions of it to anyone, anywhere, anytime. Thanks, Randy Kramer Chmouel Boudjnah wrote: SI Reasoning [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: There are good stretches of the day where my CPU spins at around 50% or more and the process spinning is kapm-idled. This is not a problem in 7.2. --=-=-= http://www.tux.org/lkml/#s14-1: 1.Why is kapmd using so much CPU time? (REG) Don't worry, it's not stealing valuable CPU time from other processes. It's just consuming idle cycles (normally charged to the idle task, which is displayed differently in top). Normally, when your system is idle, the system idle task is run, and this is shown as idle time (i.e. the "unused" CPU time is not charged to a specific process). With APM (Advanced Power
Re: [Cooker] why does kapm-idled spin the cpu so often?
maybe there is a way to not show this up in the various cpu monitors. I like to keep an eye on the monitors for runaway processes, etc but this throws me off. --- Paul Giordano [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think you're confusing "charged to" with "using" - read the paragraph a bit more carefully. The kernel has a facility to call the BIOS IDLE function with APM enabled when nothing else is happening - while in that BIOS call CPU "ownership" is the kapm-idled task, and the time increments accordingly. In reality, since the actual execution is in the BIOS IDLE routine, no CPU consumption is occurring - the BIOS should be putting your machine into a sleep state (If your BIOS is configured appropriately.) Basically APM (and ACPI, for that matter) uses the systems' BIOS as the arbiter and executor of power savings - rather than the kernel doing it directly. Hope this helps... Gio - Original Message - From: "Bruce F. Press" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2001 7:52 AM Subject: Re: [Cooker] why does kapm-idled spin the cpu so often? Yes, yes, we've heard this before. It is not a satisfactory answer, clearly the "idle" loop in kapm-idled could use a nice sleep(15) or something!! Chmouel Boudjnah wrote: SI Reasoning [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: There are good stretches of the day where my CPU spins at around 50% or more and the process spinning is kapm-idled. This is not a problem in 7.2. --=-=-= http://www.tux.org/lkml/#s14-1: 1.Why is kapmd using so much CPU time? (REG) Don't worry, it's not stealing valuable CPU time from other processes. It's just consuming idle cycles (normally charged to the idle task, which is displayed differently in top). Normally, when your system is idle, the system idle task is run, and this is shown as idle time (i.e. the "unused" CPU time is not charged to a specific process). With APM (Advanced Power Management), a special idle task (kapmd) is required so that greater power saving techniques can be enabled. So now, the "unused" CPU time is charged to the kapmd task instead. --=-=-= --=-=-= http://olstrans.sourceforge.net/release/OLS2000-apm/OLS2000-apm.html: In 2.2 and before, we basically had a hook into the idle loop, so that if we had APM enabled, we would just tell the BIOS that we're idle. In 2.3, Linus thought it would be a good idea if we had a separate power management idle loop, so (he) we invented the kernel APM daemon and I started getting bug reports about this process that was using all our time, called kapmd. And if you sat there just running top on a 2.3 kernel, the top process, if you're not doing anything else, will be kapmd and it will be using like 85% or 90% or 95% of your CPU time. These people were worried because it was idle: why is it using all of the time? Well actually, it's just that the time is getting accounted to that process. It's not doing anything, it's the idle loop. [26m, 12s] --=-=-= -- MandrakeSoft Inc http://www.chmouel.org --Chmouel = SI Reasoning [EMAIL PROTECTED] gnupg/pgp key id 035213BC __ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
