Re: kapmd cpu usage
Stephen Rothwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Rik, > Rik van Riel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> I have the idea we should really fix this dirty accounting >> thing and properly account kapmd time to idle time. > I got thinking about this and think I went slightly insane :-) > How does the following look ... it makes kapmd equivalent to > the idle processes as far as accounting for time is concerned. > Top looks funny - kapmd is getting 96% of the CPU, but the > CPU is 99.4% idle! :-) i think this together with renaming kapm to "kapmidle" or "apm-idle" should make an end to all this "kapm eats all of my cpu time" confusion ... t -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] technical director innominate AG clustering & securitynetworking people tel: +49.30.308806-13 fax: -77 http://innominate.de - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: kapmd cpu usage
Hi Rik,
Rik van Riel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> I have the idea we should really fix this dirty accounting
> thing and properly account kapmd time to idle time.
I got thinking about this and think I went slightly insane :-)
How does the following look ... it makes kapmd equivalent to
the idle processes as far as accounting for time is concerned.
Top looks funny - kapmd is getting 96% of the CPU, but the
CPU is 99.4% idle! :-)
Please tell me if I am crazy ...
Cheers,
Stephen
--
Stephen Rothwell, Open Source Researcher, Linuxcare, Inc.
+61-2-62628990 tel, +61-2-62628991 fax
[EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.linuxcare.com/
Linuxcare. Support for the revolution.
diff -ruN 2.4.0-test9/arch/alpha/kernel/process.c
2.4.0-test9-APM/arch/alpha/kernel/process.c
--- 2.4.0-test9/arch/alpha/kernel/process.c Wed Oct 4 10:36:48 2000
+++ 2.4.0-test9-APM/arch/alpha/kernel/process.c Mon Oct 9 16:03:28 2000
@@ -76,6 +76,7 @@
/* An endless idle loop with no priority at all. */
current->nice = 20;
current->counter = -100;
+ current->idle_proc = 1;
while (1) {
/* FIXME -- EV6 and LCA45 know how to power down
diff -ruN 2.4.0-test9/arch/arm/kernel/process.c
2.4.0-test9-APM/arch/arm/kernel/process.c
--- 2.4.0-test9/arch/arm/kernel/process.c Wed Oct 4 10:36:59 2000
+++ 2.4.0-test9-APM/arch/arm/kernel/process.c Mon Oct 9 16:04:00 2000
@@ -87,6 +87,7 @@
init_idle();
current->nice = 20;
current->counter = -100;
+ current->idle_proc = 1;
while (1) {
void (*idle)(void) = pm_idle;
diff -ruN 2.4.0-test9/arch/i386/kernel/apm.c 2.4.0-test9-APM/arch/i386/kernel/apm.c
--- 2.4.0-test9/arch/i386/kernel/apm.c Wed Oct 4 10:36:17 2000
+++ 2.4.0-test9-APM/arch/i386/kernel/apm.c Mon Oct 9 16:15:13 2000
@@ -1426,6 +1426,7 @@
current->files = init_task.files;
atomic_inc(>files->count);
daemonize();
+ current->idle_proc = 1;
strcpy(current->comm, "kapmd");
sigfillset(>blocked);
diff -ruN 2.4.0-test9/arch/i386/kernel/process.c
2.4.0-test9-APM/arch/i386/kernel/process.c
--- 2.4.0-test9/arch/i386/kernel/process.c Wed Oct 4 10:36:59 2000
+++ 2.4.0-test9-APM/arch/i386/kernel/process.c Mon Oct 9 16:05:42 2000
@@ -125,6 +125,7 @@
init_idle();
current->nice = 20;
current->counter = -100;
+ current->idle_proc = 1;
while (1) {
void (*idle)(void) = pm_idle;
diff -ruN 2.4.0-test9/arch/ia64/kernel/process.c
2.4.0-test9-APM/arch/ia64/kernel/process.c
--- 2.4.0-test9/arch/ia64/kernel/process.c Wed Oct 4 10:36:34 2000
+++ 2.4.0-test9-APM/arch/ia64/kernel/process.c Mon Oct 9 16:06:23 2000
@@ -121,6 +121,7 @@
init_idle();
current->nice = 20;
current->counter = -100;
+ current->idle_proc = 1;
while (1) {
diff -ruN 2.4.0-test9/arch/m68k/kernel/process.c
2.4.0-test9-APM/arch/m68k/kernel/process.c
--- 2.4.0-test9/arch/m68k/kernel/process.c Wed Oct 4 10:36:48 2000
+++ 2.4.0-test9-APM/arch/m68k/kernel/process.c Mon Oct 9 16:06:41 2000
@@ -83,6 +83,7 @@
init_idle();
current->nice = 20;
current->counter = -100;
+ current->idle_proc = 1;
idle();
}
diff -ruN 2.4.0-test9/arch/mips/kernel/process.c
2.4.0-test9-APM/arch/mips/kernel/process.c
--- 2.4.0-test9/arch/mips/kernel/process.c Wed Oct 4 10:36:48 2000
+++ 2.4.0-test9-APM/arch/mips/kernel/process.c Mon Oct 9 16:07:14 2000
@@ -36,6 +36,7 @@
/* endless idle loop with no priority at all */
current->nice = 20;
current->counter = -100;
+ current->idle_proc = 1;
init_idle();
while (1) {
diff -ruN 2.4.0-test9/arch/mips64/kernel/process.c
2.4.0-test9-APM/arch/mips64/kernel/process.c
--- 2.4.0-test9/arch/mips64/kernel/process.cWed Oct 4 10:36:48 2000
+++ 2.4.0-test9-APM/arch/mips64/kernel/process.cMon Oct 9 16:07:43 2000
@@ -35,6 +35,7 @@
init_idle();
current->nice = 20;
current->counter = -100;
+ current->idle_proc = 1;
while (1) {
while (!current->need_resched)
if (wait_available)
diff -ruN 2.4.0-test9/arch/mips64/sgi-ip27/ip27-timer.c
2.4.0-test9-APM/arch/mips64/sgi-ip27/ip27-timer.c
--- 2.4.0-test9/arch/mips64/sgi-ip27/ip27-timer.c Wed Oct 4 10:37:00 2000
+++ 2.4.0-test9-APM/arch/mips64/sgi-ip27/ip27-timer.c Mon Oct 9 16:14:10 2000
@@ -110,7 +110,7 @@
do_timer(regs);
#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
- if (current->pid) {
+ if (!current->idle_proc) {
unsigned int *inc, *inc2;
int user = user_mode(regs);
diff -ruN 2.4.0-test9/arch/ppc/kernel/idle.c 2.4.0-test9-APM/arch/ppc/kernel/idle.c
--- 2.4.0-test9/arch/ppc/kernel/idle.c Wed Oct 4 10:37:00 2000
+++ 2.4.0-test9-APM/arch/ppc/kernel/idle.c Mon Oct 9 16:08:23 2000
@@ -50,6 +50,7 @@
/* endless loop with
Re: kapmd cpu usage
Hi Rik,
Rik van Riel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have the idea we should really fix this dirty accounting
thing and properly account kapmd time to idle time.
I got thinking about this and think I went slightly insane :-)
How does the following look ... it makes kapmd equivalent to
the idle processes as far as accounting for time is concerned.
Top looks funny - kapmd is getting 96% of the CPU, but the
CPU is 99.4% idle! :-)
Please tell me if I am crazy ...
Cheers,
Stephen
--
Stephen Rothwell, Open Source Researcher, Linuxcare, Inc.
+61-2-62628990 tel, +61-2-62628991 fax
[EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.linuxcare.com/
Linuxcare. Support for the revolution.
diff -ruN 2.4.0-test9/arch/alpha/kernel/process.c
2.4.0-test9-APM/arch/alpha/kernel/process.c
--- 2.4.0-test9/arch/alpha/kernel/process.c Wed Oct 4 10:36:48 2000
+++ 2.4.0-test9-APM/arch/alpha/kernel/process.c Mon Oct 9 16:03:28 2000
@@ -76,6 +76,7 @@
/* An endless idle loop with no priority at all. */
current-nice = 20;
current-counter = -100;
+ current-idle_proc = 1;
while (1) {
/* FIXME -- EV6 and LCA45 know how to power down
diff -ruN 2.4.0-test9/arch/arm/kernel/process.c
2.4.0-test9-APM/arch/arm/kernel/process.c
--- 2.4.0-test9/arch/arm/kernel/process.c Wed Oct 4 10:36:59 2000
+++ 2.4.0-test9-APM/arch/arm/kernel/process.c Mon Oct 9 16:04:00 2000
@@ -87,6 +87,7 @@
init_idle();
current-nice = 20;
current-counter = -100;
+ current-idle_proc = 1;
while (1) {
void (*idle)(void) = pm_idle;
diff -ruN 2.4.0-test9/arch/i386/kernel/apm.c 2.4.0-test9-APM/arch/i386/kernel/apm.c
--- 2.4.0-test9/arch/i386/kernel/apm.c Wed Oct 4 10:36:17 2000
+++ 2.4.0-test9-APM/arch/i386/kernel/apm.c Mon Oct 9 16:15:13 2000
@@ -1426,6 +1426,7 @@
current-files = init_task.files;
atomic_inc(current-files-count);
daemonize();
+ current-idle_proc = 1;
strcpy(current-comm, "kapmd");
sigfillset(current-blocked);
diff -ruN 2.4.0-test9/arch/i386/kernel/process.c
2.4.0-test9-APM/arch/i386/kernel/process.c
--- 2.4.0-test9/arch/i386/kernel/process.c Wed Oct 4 10:36:59 2000
+++ 2.4.0-test9-APM/arch/i386/kernel/process.c Mon Oct 9 16:05:42 2000
@@ -125,6 +125,7 @@
init_idle();
current-nice = 20;
current-counter = -100;
+ current-idle_proc = 1;
while (1) {
void (*idle)(void) = pm_idle;
diff -ruN 2.4.0-test9/arch/ia64/kernel/process.c
2.4.0-test9-APM/arch/ia64/kernel/process.c
--- 2.4.0-test9/arch/ia64/kernel/process.c Wed Oct 4 10:36:34 2000
+++ 2.4.0-test9-APM/arch/ia64/kernel/process.c Mon Oct 9 16:06:23 2000
@@ -121,6 +121,7 @@
init_idle();
current-nice = 20;
current-counter = -100;
+ current-idle_proc = 1;
while (1) {
diff -ruN 2.4.0-test9/arch/m68k/kernel/process.c
2.4.0-test9-APM/arch/m68k/kernel/process.c
--- 2.4.0-test9/arch/m68k/kernel/process.c Wed Oct 4 10:36:48 2000
+++ 2.4.0-test9-APM/arch/m68k/kernel/process.c Mon Oct 9 16:06:41 2000
@@ -83,6 +83,7 @@
init_idle();
current-nice = 20;
current-counter = -100;
+ current-idle_proc = 1;
idle();
}
diff -ruN 2.4.0-test9/arch/mips/kernel/process.c
2.4.0-test9-APM/arch/mips/kernel/process.c
--- 2.4.0-test9/arch/mips/kernel/process.c Wed Oct 4 10:36:48 2000
+++ 2.4.0-test9-APM/arch/mips/kernel/process.c Mon Oct 9 16:07:14 2000
@@ -36,6 +36,7 @@
/* endless idle loop with no priority at all */
current-nice = 20;
current-counter = -100;
+ current-idle_proc = 1;
init_idle();
while (1) {
diff -ruN 2.4.0-test9/arch/mips64/kernel/process.c
2.4.0-test9-APM/arch/mips64/kernel/process.c
--- 2.4.0-test9/arch/mips64/kernel/process.cWed Oct 4 10:36:48 2000
+++ 2.4.0-test9-APM/arch/mips64/kernel/process.cMon Oct 9 16:07:43 2000
@@ -35,6 +35,7 @@
init_idle();
current-nice = 20;
current-counter = -100;
+ current-idle_proc = 1;
while (1) {
while (!current-need_resched)
if (wait_available)
diff -ruN 2.4.0-test9/arch/mips64/sgi-ip27/ip27-timer.c
2.4.0-test9-APM/arch/mips64/sgi-ip27/ip27-timer.c
--- 2.4.0-test9/arch/mips64/sgi-ip27/ip27-timer.c Wed Oct 4 10:37:00 2000
+++ 2.4.0-test9-APM/arch/mips64/sgi-ip27/ip27-timer.c Mon Oct 9 16:14:10 2000
@@ -110,7 +110,7 @@
do_timer(regs);
#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
- if (current-pid) {
+ if (!current-idle_proc) {
unsigned int *inc, *inc2;
int user = user_mode(regs);
diff -ruN 2.4.0-test9/arch/ppc/kernel/idle.c 2.4.0-test9-APM/arch/ppc/kernel/idle.c
--- 2.4.0-test9/arch/ppc/kernel/idle.c Wed Oct 4 10:37:00 2000
+++ 2.4.0-test9-APM/arch/ppc/kernel/idle.c Mon Oct 9 16:08:23 2000
@@ -50,6 +50,7 @@
/* endless loop with no priority at all
Re: kapmd cpu usage
Rik writes: > On Wed, 4 Oct 2000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >> Seriously, the kapmd is doing the job of yje idle loop. The >> processor is almost always asleep, but the time just gets >> accounted to kapmd. > > I have the idea we should really fix this dirty accounting > thing and properly account kapmd time to idle time. The easy answer: rename "kapmd" to "IdleTask". - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: kapmd cpu usage
On Wed, 4 Oct 2000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Geoffrey Gallaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > in 2.4.0-test9, kampd is taking up between 70% and 80% of cpu usage on my > > Good! > > Seriously, the kapmd is doing the job of yje idle loop. The > processor is almost always asleep, but the time just gets > accounted to kapmd. I have the idea we should really fix this dirty accounting thing and properly account kapmd time to idle time. regards, Rik -- "What you're running that piece of shit Gnome?!?!" -- Miguel de Icaza, UKUUG 2000 http://www.conectiva.com/ http://www.surriel.com/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: kapmd cpu usage
On Tue, 3 Oct 2000, Geoffrey Gallaway wrote: > in 2.4.0-test9, kampd is taking up between 70% and 80% of cpu usage on my > Celeon 300A box. This is a fresly compiled kernel, Ill list some stats: That is normal. kapmd cpu usage == idle time. Richard, please add this to the FAQ. Jeff - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: kapmd cpu usage
On Tue, 3 Oct 2000, Geoffrey Gallaway wrote: in 2.4.0-test9, kampd is taking up between 70% and 80% of cpu usage on my Celeon 300A box. This is a fresly compiled kernel, Ill list some stats: That is normal. kapmd cpu usage == idle time. Richard, please add this to the FAQ. Jeff - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: kapmd cpu usage
On Wed, 4 Oct 2000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: Geoffrey Gallaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: in 2.4.0-test9, kampd is taking up between 70% and 80% of cpu usage on my Good! Seriously, the kapmd is doing the job of yje idle loop. The processor is almost always asleep, but the time just gets accounted to kapmd. I have the idea we should really fix this dirty accounting thing and properly account kapmd time to idle time. regards, Rik -- "What you're running that piece of shit Gnome?!?!" -- Miguel de Icaza, UKUUG 2000 http://www.conectiva.com/ http://www.surriel.com/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: kapmd cpu usage
Rik writes: On Wed, 4 Oct 2000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: Seriously, the kapmd is doing the job of yje idle loop. The processor is almost always asleep, but the time just gets accounted to kapmd. I have the idea we should really fix this dirty accounting thing and properly account kapmd time to idle time. The easy answer: rename "kapmd" to "IdleTask". - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: kapmd cpu usage
My apologies to all on the list and Stephen. I should have thought before I typed. My concern was that this was a behavior that I had not previously seen in older 2.4.0pre or 2.2.x kernels... Once again, my apologies, Geoff This one time, at band camp, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Geoffrey, > > Geoffrey Gallaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > in 2.4.0-test9, kampd is taking up between 70% and 80% of cpu usage on my > > Good! > > Seriously, the kapmd is doing the job of yje idle loop. The processor > is almost always asleep, but the time just gets accounted to kapmd. > > Cheers, > Stephen > -- Geoffrey Gallaway || Be wary when walking down the path to madness, all such [EMAIL PROTECTED] || paths invariably lead to madness. D e v o r z h u n || - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: kapmd cpu usage
Hi Geoffrey, Geoffrey Gallaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > in 2.4.0-test9, kampd is taking up between 70% and 80% of cpu usage on my Good! Seriously, the kapmd is doing the job of yje idle loop. The processor is almost always asleep, but the time just gets accounted to kapmd. Cheers, Stephen -- Stephen Rothwell, Open Source Researcher, Linuxcare, Inc. +61-2-62628990 tel, +61-2-62628991 fax [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.linuxcare.com/ Linuxcare. Support for the revolution. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
kapmd cpu usage
in 2.4.0-test9, kampd is taking up between 70% and 80% of cpu usage on my Celeon 300A box. This is a fresly compiled kernel, Ill list some stats: Celeron 300A Asus Motherboard 64 Megs ram APM enabled in BIOS Ne2000 ethernet card S3 PCI video card This is based on a redhat 6.2.. Any ideas? I'll be happy to do as much as I can to give whoever needs it better errors (files in /proc, better description of problem, etc). Just let me know... Geoff -- Geoffrey Gallaway || What kills you makes me stronger. [EMAIL PROTECTED] || D e v o r z h u n || - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
kapmd cpu usage
in 2.4.0-test9, kampd is taking up between 70% and 80% of cpu usage on my Celeon 300A box. This is a fresly compiled kernel, Ill list some stats: Celeron 300A Asus Motherboard 64 Megs ram APM enabled in BIOS Ne2000 ethernet card S3 PCI video card This is based on a redhat 6.2.. Any ideas? I'll be happy to do as much as I can to give whoever needs it better errors (files in /proc, better description of problem, etc). Just let me know... Geoff -- Geoffrey Gallaway || What kills you makes me stronger. [EMAIL PROTECTED] || D e v o r z h u n || - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: kapmd cpu usage
Hi Geoffrey, Geoffrey Gallaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: in 2.4.0-test9, kampd is taking up between 70% and 80% of cpu usage on my Good! Seriously, the kapmd is doing the job of yje idle loop. The processor is almost always asleep, but the time just gets accounted to kapmd. Cheers, Stephen -- Stephen Rothwell, Open Source Researcher, Linuxcare, Inc. +61-2-62628990 tel, +61-2-62628991 fax [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.linuxcare.com/ Linuxcare. Support for the revolution. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: kapmd cpu usage
My apologies to all on the list and Stephen. I should have thought before I typed. My concern was that this was a behavior that I had not previously seen in older 2.4.0pre or 2.2.x kernels... Once again, my apologies, Geoff This one time, at band camp, Stephen Rothwell wrote: Hi Geoffrey, Geoffrey Gallaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: in 2.4.0-test9, kampd is taking up between 70% and 80% of cpu usage on my Good! Seriously, the kapmd is doing the job of yje idle loop. The processor is almost always asleep, but the time just gets accounted to kapmd. Cheers, Stephen -- Geoffrey Gallaway || Be wary when walking down the path to madness, all such [EMAIL PROTECTED] || paths invariably lead to madness. D e v o r z h u n || - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
