On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 12:54 pm, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 10:05:06AM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 08:42, Christopher Friesen wrote:
Lee Revell wrote:
The controversy over the introduction of CONFIG_HZ demonstrated the
urgency of getting a dynamic
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 22:58, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > I'm asking for some kind of an authoritative answer
> > quite urgently. What is the optimum thread amount on 2 CPU SMP system
> > running Linux ?
>
> context switching in linux isn't THAT expensive compared to some other
> operating systems,
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 22:58, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
I'm asking for some kind of an authoritative answer
quite urgently. What is the optimum thread amount on 2 CPU SMP system
running Linux ?
context switching in linux isn't THAT expensive compared to some other
operating systems, but it's
On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 14:44, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> On 8/21/05, Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Well it will survive all right, but eventually get into swap thrash
> > territory and that's not a meaningful cpu scheduler benchmark.
> >
> > Cheers,
On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 14:16, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 8/21/05, Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 11:34, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> > > Hi,
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > > here are kernbench results:
> >
>
On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 11:34, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> Hi,
Hi
> here are kernbench results:
Nice to see you using kernbench :)
> ./kernbench -M -o 128
> [..]
> Average Optimal -j 128 Load Run:
Was there any reason you chose 128? Optimal usually works out automatically
from kernbench to 4x
On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 11:34, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
Hi,
Hi
here are kernbench results:
Nice to see you using kernbench :)
./kernbench -M -o 128
[..]
Average Optimal -j 128 Load Run:
Was there any reason you chose 128? Optimal usually works out automatically
from kernbench to 4x
On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 14:16, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
Hi,
On 8/21/05, Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 11:34, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
Hi,
Hi
here are kernbench results:
Nice to see you using kernbench :)
./kernbench -M -o 128
[..]
Average
On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 14:44, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
On 8/21/05, Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well it will survive all right, but eventually get into swap thrash
territory and that's not a meaningful cpu scheduler benchmark.
Cheers,
Con
Ok. How about make -j? It's one
These are patches designed to improve system responsiveness and interactivity.
It is configurable to any workload but the default ck* patch is aimed at the
desktop and ck*-server is available with more emphasis on serverspace.
Apply to 2.6.12 (This includes all patches in 2.6.12.5):
On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 06:13, Lee Revell wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-08-19 at 14:36 +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 02:41 pm, Peter Williams wrote:
> > > Maybe we could use interbench to find a nice value for X that doesn't
> > > destroy Audio and Video? The
On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 06:13, Lee Revell wrote:
On Fri, 2005-08-19 at 14:36 +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 02:41 pm, Peter Williams wrote:
Maybe we could use interbench to find a nice value for X that doesn't
destroy Audio and Video? The results that I just posted
These are patches designed to improve system responsiveness and interactivity.
It is configurable to any workload but the default ck* patch is aimed at the
desktop and ck*-server is available with more emphasis on serverspace.
Apply to 2.6.12 (This includes all patches in 2.6.12.5):
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 02:41 pm, Peter Williams wrote:
> Con Kolivas wrote:
> > On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 01:28 pm, Lee Revell wrote:
> >>On Fri, 2005-08-19 at 05:09 +0200, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> >>>Hi,
> >>>here are interbench v0.29 resoults:
> >>
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 01:28 pm, Lee Revell wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-08-19 at 05:09 +0200, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> > Hi,
> > here are interbench v0.29 resoults:
>
> The X test under simulated "Compile" load looks most interesting.
>
> Most of the schedulers do quite poorly on this test - only Zaphod
; wait state instead of idle (this is teh problem on 2.6 series
> but CPU is free on 2.4 series)? That's the main problem I think at the
> moment.
There is no wait state accounted for in 2.4 so you won't see it.
Con
> Con Kolivas wrote:
> > On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 22:48, Martin
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 22:48, Martin MOKREJŠ wrote:
> I think the problem here is outside afs.
> Just doing this dd test but writing data directly to the ext2
> target gives same behaviour, i.e. on 2.4 kernel I see most of the
> CPU idle but on 2.6 kernel all that CPU amount is shown as in
> wait
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 22:48, Martin MOKREJŠ wrote:
I think the problem here is outside afs.
Just doing this dd test but writing data directly to the ext2
target gives same behaviour, i.e. on 2.4 kernel I see most of the
CPU idle but on 2.6 kernel all that CPU amount is shown as in
wait state.
instead of idle (this is teh problem on 2.6 series
but CPU is free on 2.4 series)? That's the main problem I think at the
moment.
There is no wait state accounted for in 2.4 so you won't see it.
Con
Con Kolivas wrote:
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 22:48, Martin MOKREJŠ wrote:
I think the problem here
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 01:28 pm, Lee Revell wrote:
On Fri, 2005-08-19 at 05:09 +0200, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
Hi,
here are interbench v0.29 resoults:
The X test under simulated Compile load looks most interesting.
Most of the schedulers do quite poorly on this test - only Zaphod with
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 02:41 pm, Peter Williams wrote:
Con Kolivas wrote:
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 01:28 pm, Lee Revell wrote:
On Fri, 2005-08-19 at 05:09 +0200, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
Hi,
here are interbench v0.29 resoults:
The X test under simulated Compile load looks most interesting
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 10:50 am, Bernardo Innocenti wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've been investigating a performance problem on a
> server using OpenLDAP 2.2.26 for nss resolution and
> running kernel 2.6.12.
>
> When a CPU bound process such as GCC is running in the
> background (even at nice 10), many
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 09:48 am, Peter Williams wrote:
> Con Kolivas wrote:
> > On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 09:15 am, Peter Williams wrote:
> >>Con Kolivas wrote:
> > He did a make allyesconfig which is a bit different and probably far too
> > i/o bound. By the way a s
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 09:15 am, Peter Williams wrote:
> Con Kolivas wrote:
> > On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 18:10, Peter Williams wrote:
> >>Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> >>>Hi,
> >>>here are schedulers benchmark (part2):
> >>>[bits deleted]
> >>
&
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 04:04, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> Hi,
> here are additional staircase scheduler benchmarks.
>
> (make all -j8)
>
> scheduler:
> staircase
>
> sched_compute=1
> real49m48.619s
> user77m20.788s
> sys 6m7.653s
Very nice thank you.
Since you are benchmarking, here is
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 21:23, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 8/17/05, Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 22:29, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > here are my benchmarks (part1):
> >
> > Want to try the stairc
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 18:10, Peter Williams wrote:
> Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> > Hi,
> > here are schedulers benchmark (part2):
> > [bits deleted]
>
> Here's a summary of your output generated using the attached Python script.
>
> | Build Statistics | Overall Statistics
>
>
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 22:29, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> Hi,
> here are my benchmarks (part1):
Want to try the staircase cpu scheduler in "compute" mode for the compute
intensive workloads?
Thanks,
Con
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 22:29, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
Hi,
here are my benchmarks (part1):
Want to try the staircase cpu scheduler in compute mode for the compute
intensive workloads?
Thanks,
Con
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 18:10, Peter Williams wrote:
Michal Piotrowski wrote:
Hi,
here are schedulers benchmark (part2):
[bits deleted]
Here's a summary of your output generated using the attached Python script.
| Build Statistics | Overall Statistics
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 21:23, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
Hi,
On 8/17/05, Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 22:29, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
Hi,
here are my benchmarks (part1):
Want to try the staircase cpu scheduler in compute mode for the compute
intensive
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 04:04, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
Hi,
here are additional staircase scheduler benchmarks.
(make all -j8)
scheduler:
staircase
sched_compute=1
real49m48.619s
user77m20.788s
sys 6m7.653s
Very nice thank you.
Since you are benchmarking, here is an
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 09:15 am, Peter Williams wrote:
Con Kolivas wrote:
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 18:10, Peter Williams wrote:
Michal Piotrowski wrote:
Hi,
here are schedulers benchmark (part2):
[bits deleted]
Here's a summary of your output generated using the attached Python
script
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 09:48 am, Peter Williams wrote:
Con Kolivas wrote:
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 09:15 am, Peter Williams wrote:
Con Kolivas wrote:
He did a make allyesconfig which is a bit different and probably far too
i/o bound. By the way a single kernel compile is hardly a reproducible
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 10:50 am, Bernardo Innocenti wrote:
Hello,
I've been investigating a performance problem on a
server using OpenLDAP 2.2.26 for nss resolution and
running kernel 2.6.12.
When a CPU bound process such as GCC is running in the
background (even at nice 10), many trivial
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 23:19, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2005 at 02:30:51AM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > Time definitely was lost the longer the machine was running.
>
> I think I found the reason for time drift. Basically cur_timer->mark_offset
> doesnt expect
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 23:19, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
On Tue, Aug 16, 2005 at 02:30:51AM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
Time definitely was lost the longer the machine was running.
I think I found the reason for time drift. Basically cur_timer-mark_offset
doesnt expect to be called from non-timer
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 01:35, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 14, 2005 at 10:18:28AM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > timers that made no progress until interrupts drove the timers on again.
> > I built in both PIT and APIC dyntick mode into the kernel and the default
> >
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 11:43, Zwane Mwaikambo wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Aug 2005, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > Ok perhaps on the resume side instead. When trying to resume can you
> > > try booting with 'dyntick=disable'. Note this isn't meant to be a long
> > > term fix but once we figure out where the
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 10:26, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 09:29:20 +1000, Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Remember that dmesg diff you sent? That's the one. If you strace
> > > the digikamcameracl, it probably keels over after EBUSY.
>
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 10:26, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 09:29:20 +1000, Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Remember that dmesg diff you sent? That's the one. If you strace
the digikamcameracl, it probably keels over after EBUSY.
Nice shot! Got it in one. bugzilla updated
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 11:43, Zwane Mwaikambo wrote:
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005, Pavel Machek wrote:
Ok perhaps on the resume side instead. When trying to resume can you
try booting with 'dyntick=disable'. Note this isn't meant to be a long
term fix but once we figure out where the problem is we
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 01:35, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
On Sun, Aug 14, 2005 at 10:18:28AM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
timers that made no progress until interrupts drove the timers on again.
I built in both PIT and APIC dyntick mode into the kernel and the default
in the way I modified
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 04:56, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 18:42:12 +1000, Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 18:00, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
> > > On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 17:12:06 +1000, Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 18:00, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 17:12:06 +1000, Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > A digital camera which was working fine in 2.6.11/12 now fails on
> > 2.6.13-rc6 (not sure when it started failing).
>
> Does it continue to
A digital camera which was working fine in 2.6.11/12 now fails on 2.6.13-rc6
(not sure when it started failing).
All the messages seem to indicate that it's working but the digikam
application now says it fails to initialise the camera.
The relevant info from dmesg says:
usb 3-1: new full
A digital camera which was working fine in 2.6.11/12 now fails on 2.6.13-rc6
(not sure when it started failing).
All the messages seem to indicate that it's working but the digikam
application now says it fails to initialise the camera.
The relevant info from dmesg says:
usb 3-1: new full
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 18:00, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 17:12:06 +1000, Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A digital camera which was working fine in 2.6.11/12 now fails on
2.6.13-rc6 (not sure when it started failing).
Does it continue to work on an older kernel? I saw a USB
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 04:56, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 18:42:12 +1000, Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 18:00, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 17:12:06 +1000, Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Yes all those dmesgs etc were redone after
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 10:26, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 09:29, Dave Jones wrote:
> > I've noticed this week whilst trying to encode a bunch
> > of audio CDs to oggs that my boxes running the latest
> > kernels are having serious issues, whereas 2.6.12 seems
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 09:29, Dave Jones wrote:
> I've noticed this week whilst trying to encode a bunch
> of audio CDs to oggs that my boxes running the latest
> kernels are having serious issues, whereas 2.6.12 seems
> to cope just fine.
>
> The symptoms vary. On some of my machines just inserting
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 02:46, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 14, 2005 at 12:53:20AM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > Indeed this fixes it on my P4 so that it does skip ticks. However
> > presumably due to the code change I am having the reverse behaviour from
> > previously
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 09:06, Indan Zupancic wrote:
> Hello,
Hi.
Interesting find. I'm forwarding this on to lkml and Nick so they can peruse
your findings and see what needs to be done.
Thanks,
Con
> Short version:
> With the anticipatory IO scheduler it's possible to cause extreme long
>
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 21:37, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 13, 2005 at 04:51:07PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > I'm sorry to say this doesn't appear to skip any ticks on my single P4
> > with SMP/SMT enabled.
>
> Con,
> I had enabled skipping ticks only in
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 11:35, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 06:19, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> > Hi,
> > Here's finally the SMP changes that I had promised. The patch
> > breaks the earlier restriction that all CPUs have to be idle before
> > cutting of time
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 11:35, Con Kolivas wrote:
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 06:19, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
Hi,
Here's finally the SMP changes that I had promised. The patch
breaks the earlier restriction that all CPUs have to be idle before
cutting of timers and now allows each idle CPU
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 21:37, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
On Sat, Aug 13, 2005 at 04:51:07PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
I'm sorry to say this doesn't appear to skip any ticks on my single P4
with SMP/SMT enabled.
Con,
I had enabled skipping ticks only in default_idle routine. So if
you
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 09:06, Indan Zupancic wrote:
Hello,
Hi.
Interesting find. I'm forwarding this on to lkml and Nick so they can peruse
your findings and see what needs to be done.
Thanks,
Con
Short version:
With the anticipatory IO scheduler it's possible to cause extreme long
delays so
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 02:46, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
On Sun, Aug 14, 2005 at 12:53:20AM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
Indeed this fixes it on my P4 so that it does skip ticks. However
presumably due to the code change I am having the reverse behaviour from
previously - it pauses for ages when
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 09:29, Dave Jones wrote:
I've noticed this week whilst trying to encode a bunch
of audio CDs to oggs that my boxes running the latest
kernels are having serious issues, whereas 2.6.12 seems
to cope just fine.
The symptoms vary. On some of my machines just inserting
an
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 10:26, Con Kolivas wrote:
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 09:29, Dave Jones wrote:
I've noticed this week whilst trying to encode a bunch
of audio CDs to oggs that my boxes running the latest
kernels are having serious issues, whereas 2.6.12 seems
to cope just fine
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 06:19, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> Hi,
> Here's finally the SMP changes that I had promised. The patch
> breaks the earlier restriction that all CPUs have to be idle before
> cutting of timers and now allows each idle CPU to skip ticks independent
> of others. The patch
the same value that is checked is used in the division.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dave Kleikamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Acked-by: Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EM
that is checked is used in the division.
Signed-off-by: Dave Kleikamp [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Acked-by: Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 06:19, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
Hi,
Here's finally the SMP changes that I had promised. The patch
breaks the earlier restriction that all CPUs have to be idle before
cutting of timers and now allows each idle CPU to skip ticks independent
of others. The patch is
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 01:21 am, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
> I encounted this trap on a 2-way i386 box running 2.6.13-rc4-mm1:
>
> [70347.743727] divide error: [#2]
> [70347.752979] PREEMPT SMP DEBUG_PAGEALLOC
> [70347.773060] last sysfs file: /devices/pnp0/00:11/id
>
> Program received signal
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 01:21 am, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
I encounted this trap on a 2-way i386 box running 2.6.13-rc4-mm1:
[70347.743727] divide error: [#2]
[70347.752979] PREEMPT SMP DEBUG_PAGEALLOC
[70347.773060] last sysfs file: /devices/pnp0/00:11/id
Program received signal SIGTRAP,
On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 04:44 pm, Thomas Renninger wrote:
> Pallipadi, Venkatesh wrote:
> >>-Original Message-
> >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> >>Stefan Seyfried
> >>Sent: Sunday, August 07, 2005 10:43
On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 04:44 pm, Thomas Renninger wrote:
Pallipadi, Venkatesh wrote:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Stefan Seyfried
Sent: Sunday, August 07, 2005 10:43 PM
To: Con Kolivas
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED
Interbench is designed to benchmark interactivity in Linux.
Direct download:
http://ck.kolivas.org/apps/interbench/interbench-0.29.tar.bz2
Web:
http://interbench.kolivas.org
Changes (PW: thanks to Peter Williams):
Altered the calibration loop.
Added the option to select loads to perform or not
Interbench is designed to benchmark interactivity in Linux.
Direct download:
http://ck.kolivas.org/apps/interbench/interbench-0.29.tar.bz2
Web:
http://interbench.kolivas.org
Changes (PW: thanks to Peter Williams):
Altered the calibration loop.
Added the option to select loads to perform or not
On Mon, 8 Aug 2005 11:20 am, Kyle Moffett wrote:
> On Aug 7, 2005, at 19:51:25, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > On Mon, 8 Aug 2005 02:58, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> >> Con,
> >> I am afraid until SMP correctness is resolved, then this is not
> >> in a position
On Mon, 8 Aug 2005 10:46 am, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> Hi.
>
> Sorry for the slow response. Busy still.
>
> On Sat, 2005-08-06 at 15:06, Patrick Mochel wrote:
> > On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> > > Hi.
> > >
> > > I finally found some time to finish this off. I don't really like the
On Mon, 8 Aug 2005 02:58, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 07, 2005 at 03:12:21PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > Respin of the dynamic ticks patch for i386 by Tony Lindgen and Tuukka
> > Tikkanen with further code cleanups. Are were there yet?
>
> Con,
>
On Mon, 8 Aug 2005 02:58, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
On Sun, Aug 07, 2005 at 03:12:21PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
Respin of the dynamic ticks patch for i386 by Tony Lindgen and Tuukka
Tikkanen with further code cleanups. Are were there yet?
Con,
I am afraid until SMP correctness
On Mon, 8 Aug 2005 10:46 am, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
Hi.
Sorry for the slow response. Busy still.
On Sat, 2005-08-06 at 15:06, Patrick Mochel wrote:
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
Hi.
I finally found some time to finish this off. I don't really like the
end result -
On Mon, 8 Aug 2005 11:20 am, Kyle Moffett wrote:
On Aug 7, 2005, at 19:51:25, Con Kolivas wrote:
On Mon, 8 Aug 2005 02:58, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
Con,
I am afraid until SMP correctness is resolved, then this is not
in a position to go in (unless you want to enable it only for UP
ified by Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
Signed-off-by: Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
arch/i386/Kconfig | 35
arch/i386/kernel/Makefile |1
arch/i386/kernel/apic.c | 19 ++
arch/i386/kernel/dyn-tick.c | 150 +
On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 00:54, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 02, 2005 at 02:43:55PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > This is a code reordered version of the dynamic ticks patch from Tony
> > Lindgen and Tuukka Tikkanen - sorry about spamming your mail boxes with
> > this, bu
On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 00:54, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
On Tue, Aug 02, 2005 at 02:43:55PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
This is a code reordered version of the dynamic ticks patch from Tony
Lindgen and Tuukka Tikkanen - sorry about spamming your mail boxes with
this, but thanks for the code
Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED].
Signed-off-by: Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
arch/i386/Kconfig | 35
arch/i386/kernel/Makefile |1
arch/i386/kernel/apic.c | 19 ++
arch/i386/kernel/dyn-tick.c | 150 +++
arch/i386/kernel/irq.c
Interbench is a benchmark application is designed to benchmark interactivity
in Linux.
Direct download link:
http://ck.kolivas.org/apps/interbench/interbench-0.28.tar.bz2
Web page:
http://interbench.kolivas.org
Release early, release often they say...
Changes:
Yet more floating point fixes
On Sat, 6 Aug 2005 13:37, Gabriel Devenyi wrote:
> After conducting some further research I've determined that cool n quiet
> has no effect on this "bug" if you can call it that. With the system
> running in init 1, and cool n quiet disabled in the bios, a sleep(N>0)
> results in the run_time
These are patches designed to improve system responsiveness and interactivity.
It is configurable to any workload but the default ck* patch is aimed at the
desktop and ck*-server is available with more emphasis on serverspace.
Apply to 2.6.12 (This includes all patches in 2.6.12.4):
Here's my most current version of the dynamic ticks patch for i386 with some
more minor cleanups already discussed and cosmetic changes ( also available
at http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/dyn-ticks/ ).
Cheers,
Con
---
Index: linux-2.6.13-rc5-ck2/arch/i386/Kconfig
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 22:37, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 03, 2005 at 06:05:28AM +0000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > This is the dynamic ticks patch for i386 as written by Tony Lindgen
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and Tuukka Tikkanen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
> > Patch
On Tue, 1 Jan 2002 21:33, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > I assume you're maintaining the dyn tick patches for i386 posted on the
> > muru website as your email is listed there. I thought you might be
> > interested in this patch for dyn-ticks which removes most of the #ifdefs
> > out of common
On Tue, 1 Jan 2002 21:33, Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
I assume you're maintaining the dyn tick patches for i386 posted on the
muru website as your email is listed there. I thought you might be
interested in this patch for dyn-ticks which removes most of the #ifdefs
out of common code paths
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 22:37, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
On Wed, Aug 03, 2005 at 06:05:28AM +, Con Kolivas wrote:
This is the dynamic ticks patch for i386 as written by Tony Lindgen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and Tuukka Tikkanen [EMAIL PROTECTED].
Patch for 2.6.13-rc5
There were a couple
Here's my most current version of the dynamic ticks patch for i386 with some
more minor cleanups already discussed and cosmetic changes ( also available
at http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/dyn-ticks/ ).
Cheers,
Con
---
Index: linux-2.6.13-rc5-ck2/arch/i386/Kconfig
These are patches designed to improve system responsiveness and interactivity.
It is configurable to any workload but the default ck* patch is aimed at the
desktop and ck*-server is available with more emphasis on serverspace.
Apply to 2.6.12 (This includes all patches in 2.6.12.4):
On Sat, 6 Aug 2005 13:37, Gabriel Devenyi wrote:
After conducting some further research I've determined that cool n quiet
has no effect on this bug if you can call it that. With the system
running in init 1, and cool n quiet disabled in the bios, a sleep(N0)
results in the run_time value
Interbench is a benchmark application is designed to benchmark interactivity
in Linux.
Direct download link:
http://ck.kolivas.org/apps/interbench/interbench-0.28.tar.bz2
Web page:
http://interbench.kolivas.org
Release early, release often they say...
Changes:
Yet more floating point fixes
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 01:03 am, Vojtech Pavlik wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 03, 2005 at 04:23:59PM +0200, Jan De Luyck wrote:
> > On Wednesday 03 August 2005 14:14, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 21:54, Jan De Luyck wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday 03 August
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 07:15 am, Daniel Petrini wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Here we have some support to have more tests on Dynamic Tick.
> We have some functions that exports timers information to a proc entry
> (/proc/top_info), in a kernel patch and a script that handles this
> info and give some output to
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 11:30 am, Paul wrote:
> Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on Wed Aug 03, 2005 [03:59:24 PM] said:
> > This is the dynamic ticks patch for i386 as written by Tony Lindgen
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and Tuukka Tikkanen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
> >
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 11:39 am, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 10:53 am, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > All else being equal, it is much better if you unlock in the
> > same function that takes the lock. For readability.
> >
> > It looks like you should be able to
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 10:53 am, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Con Kolivas wrote:
> > Something like this on top is cleaner and quieter. I'll add this to
> > pending changes for another version.
> >
> >
> > ---
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 08:12 am, Marc Ballarin wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 15:59:24 +1000
>
> Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This is the dynamic ticks patch for i386 as written by Tony Lindgen
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and Tuukka Tikkanen <[EMAIL PROTECTED
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 10:05 am, Con Kolivas wrote:
> Looking yet further into this, if it gotos monotonic_base it will return
> without using any of these variables so it's a harmless warning but we may
> as well initialise them to quieten it.
Something like this on top is cleaner and quie
801 - 900 of 1175 matches
Mail list logo
