On Mon, 15 Aug 2005, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > Why not just set it to a fixed frequency, suspend and then on boot resume
> > to a fixed frequency and let the timer tick code eventually switch back.
>
> It's probably worth holding off further discussion on this point till the SMP
> scalable version
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 proble
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 should be able to code
> > around
> > it.
>
Hi!
> > > What happens when you disable it at runtime before suspending?
> > >
> > > echo 0 > /sys/devices/system/dyn_tick/dyn_tick0/enable
> >
> > This has no effect. The system stalls at exactly the same point. The
> > last lines on my screen are:
>
> Ok perhaps on the resume side instead. When
Tony Lindgren wrote:
~
Do you have a patch around for improving next_timer_interrupt()?
Well, sort of. The code in the VST patch does the right thing. Problem
is it does a bit more than the timer.c code. You can find that code on
the HRT site CVS.
--
George Anzinger george@mvista.com
HRT
Jim MacBaine wrote:
I just borrowed a power meter to see (or not to see) real effects of
dyntick. The difference between static 1000 HZ and dynamic HZ is much
less than I expected, only a very little about noise. With dyntick
disabled at 1000 HZ my laptop needs 31,3 W. With dyntick enabled I
ge
* George Anzinger [050809 13:07]:
>
> >>I can take a shot at addressing these concerns in dynamic_tick patch, but
> >>it seems to me that VST has already addressed all these to a big extent.
> >>Had you considered VST before? The biggest bottleneck I see in VST going
> >>mainline is its depende
* Zwane Mwaikambo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [050809 07:17]:
> On Mon, 8 Aug 2005, Tony Lindgren wrote:
>
> > As far as I remember enabling AMD stop grant disconnects all cpus. This
> > means the system won't be able to do any work until the dyntick timer
> > interrupt wakes up the system.
> >
> > > Bot
> I convinced my self that the next_timer... code in timer.c misses timers
> (i.e. gives the wrong answer). I did this (after wondering due to
> performance) by scanning the whole timer list after I had the
> next_timer... answer and finding a better answer, not always, but some
> times. That cod
Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Srivatsa Vaddagiri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [050805 05:37]:
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
T
On Mon, 8 Aug 2005, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> As far as I remember enabling AMD stop grant disconnects all cpus. This
> means the system won't be able to do any work until the dyntick timer
> interrupt wakes up the system.
>
> > Both requirements (idling all CPUs together vs individually) I think
>
* Srivatsa Vaddagiri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [050808 07:53]:
> On Mon, Aug 08, 2005 at 12:26:01AM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > Good point, and it would be nice to have it resolved for systems that
> > support
> > idling individual CPUs. The current setup was done because when I was
> > tinkering
>
On Mon, Aug 08, 2005 at 12:26:01AM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> Good point, and it would be nice to have it resolved for systems that support
> idling individual CPUs. The current setup was done because when I was
> tinkering
> with the amd76x_pm patch a while a back, I noticed that idling the cp
* Srivatsa Vaddagiri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [050805 05:37]:
> 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
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 c
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 of things that I wanted to change so here is an updated
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 2005 07:59, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > > > Th
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]>.
> > Patch for 2.6.13-rc5
> Ive been run
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]>.
> Patch for 2.6.13-rc5
>
> There were a couple of things that I wanted to change so here i
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]>.
> > Patch for 2.6.13-rc5
>
> One
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]>.
> Patch for 2.6.13-rc5
One issue (tested the -rc4 Version on -mm):
- on interrupt flood (
On Wed, Aug 03, 2005 at 03:59:24PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
>...
> --- linux-2.6.13-rc5-ck2.orig/arch/i386/kernel/time.c 2005-08-03
> 11:29:08.0 +1000
> +++ linux-2.6.13-rc5-ck2/arch/i386/kernel/time.c 2005-08-03
> 11:29:29.0 +1000
>...
> -static inline void do_timer_interru
On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 01:22:36 +0200
Christian Leber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just a few numbers:
>
> I tried it on a Laptop (Dell C810, P3m 1133 mhz) and measured the power
> usage with an external device and it stayed with or without patch at
> 27W. (HZ was at about 28)
Does your machine ente
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 2005 07:59, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > > This is the dynamic ticks patch for i386 as written by Tony Lin
* Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [050804 00:16]:
> On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 05:04 pm, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 04:59 pm, Jim MacBaine wrote:
> > > I just borrowed a power meter to see (or not to see) real effects of
> > > dyntick. The difference between static 1000 HZ and dynamic HZ is
On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 05:04 pm, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 04:59 pm, Jim MacBaine wrote:
> > I just borrowed a power meter to see (or not to see) real effects of
> > dyntick. The difference between static 1000 HZ and dynamic HZ is much
> > less than I expected, only a very little about no
On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 04:59 pm, Jim MacBaine wrote:
> I just borrowed a power meter to see (or not to see) real effects of
> dyntick. The difference between static 1000 HZ and dynamic HZ is much
> less than I expected, only a very little about noise. With dyntick
> disabled at 1000 HZ my laptop needs
I just borrowed a power meter to see (or not to see) real effects of
dyntick. The difference between static 1000 HZ and dynamic HZ is much
less than I expected, only a very little about noise. With dyntick
disabled at 1000 HZ my laptop needs 31,3 W. With dyntick enabled I
get 29.8 W, the pmstats-
On 8/4/05, Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 should be able to code around
> it.
Sorry, no
On Thursday 04 August 2005 07:07, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 03:09 pm, Jan De Luyck wrote:
> > On Wednesday 03 August 2005 07:59, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > This is the dynamic ticks patch for i386 as written by Tony Lindgen
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and Tuukka Tikkanen
> > > <[EMAIL PRO
On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 03:09 pm, Jan De Luyck wrote:
> On Wednesday 03 August 2005 07:59, 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
>
> On a weird sidenote: my syna
On Wednesday 03 August 2005 07:59, 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
On a weird sidenote: my synaptics touchpad seems to not-like dyntick very much.
When st
On Wed, Aug 03, 2005 at 03:59:24PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> Patch for 2.6.13-rc5
Just a few numbers:
I tried it on a Laptop (Dell C810, P3m 1133 mhz) and measured the power
usage with an external device and it stayed with or without patch at
27W. (HZ was at about 28)
On a desktop with AthlonX
On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 08:22 am, Jim MacBaine wrote:
> On 8/3/05, Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What happens when you disable it at runtime before suspending?
> >
> > echo 0 > /sys/devices/system/dyn_tick/dyn_tick0/enable
>
> This has no effect. The system stalls at exactly the same point.
On 8/3/05, Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What happens when you disable it at runtime before suspending?
>
> echo 0 > /sys/devices/system/dyn_tick/dyn_tick0/enable
This has no effect. The system stalls at exactly the same point. The
last lines on my screen are:
...
Software Suspend Co
On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 05:20, Jim MacBaine wrote:
> On 8/3/05, 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]>.
> > Patch for 2.6.13-rc5
> >
> > There were a couple of things t
On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 05:54, Jeffrey Hundstad wrote:
> 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 of things that I wanted to change so here
On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 14:54:40 CDT, Jeffrey Hundstad said:
> BTW: how do you know what HZ your machine is running at?
% zcat /proc/config.gz | grep -i hz
might do what you thought you wanted.
What rate you're *actually* running at is probably best done by taking the
number of timer interrupts fro
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 of things that I wanted to change so here is an updated
version. This code should have stabilised enoug
On 8/3/05, 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]>.
> Patch for 2.6.13-rc5
>
> There were a couple of things that I wanted to change so here is an updated
> version.
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 2005 07:59, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > This is the dynamic ticks patch for i386 as written by Tony Lindgen
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and Tuukka Tikkanen
> > > <[EMAIL PROTE
On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 21:54, Jan De Luyck wrote:
> On Wednesday 03 August 2005 07:59, 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
>
> Compiles and runs ok here.
>
>
On Wednesday 03 August 2005 07:59, 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
>
Compiles and runs ok here.
Is there actually any timer frequency that's advisable to
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 of things that I wanted to change so here is an updated
version. This code should have stabilised enough for general testing
44 matches
Mail list logo
