Hi!
> > > but perhaps somehow we miss this fact and fail to turn off the lapic
> > > clockevents drivers?
> >
> > Ok, I guess I'm lost. If I offline second CPU, I immediately get
> > 1000Hz timer tick... is that expected?
>
> Hmm. No. I have no idea why this is happening.
>
> 34196 total event
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > Digging into process_32|64.c...
> >
> > 64:
> > while (1) {
> > while (!need_resched()) {
> > void (*idle)(void);
> >
> > if (__get_cpu_var(cpu_idle_state))
> >
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Okay, so the problem seems to be we are using unreliable lapic
> timer... which is stopped in C3 (and in C2 on broken machines).
>
> I do not see any mechanism to disable lapic; there seems to be some
> mechanism to work around stopped lapic time
Hi!
Okay, so the problem seems to be we are using unreliable lapic
timer... which is stopped in C3 (and in C2 on broken machines).
I do not see any mechanism to disable lapic; there seems to be some
mechanism to work around stopped lapic timer is used (in
acpi/processor_idle.c) but it does not se
On Sunday, 25 of November 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Saturday, 24 of November 2007, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > > > > but perhaps somehow we miss this fact and fail to turn off the lapic
> > > > > clockevents drivers?
> > > >
> > > > Ok, I guess I'm lost. If I offline second CPU
On Saturday, 24 of November 2007, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > > > but perhaps somehow we miss this fact and fail to turn off the lapic
> > > > clockevents drivers?
> > >
> > > Ok, I guess I'm lost. If I offline second CPU, I immediately get
> > > 1000Hz timer tick... is that expected?
> >
>
Hi!
> > > but perhaps somehow we miss this fact and fail to turn off the lapic
> > > clockevents drivers?
> >
> > Ok, I guess I'm lost. If I offline second CPU, I immediately get
> > 1000Hz timer tick... is that expected?
>
> Hmm. No. I have no idea why this is happening.
>
> 34196 total event
On Thu 2007-11-22 21:29:51, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Nov 2007, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > but perhaps somehow we miss this fact and fail to turn off the lapic
> > > clockevents drivers?
> >
> > Ok, I guess I'm lost. If I offline second CPU, I immediately get
> > 1000Hz timer tick... is
Hi!
> > > but perhaps somehow we miss this fact and fail to turn off the lapic
> > > clockevents drivers?
> >
> > Ok, I guess I'm lost. If I offline second CPU, I immediately get
> > 1000Hz timer tick... is that expected?
>
> Hmm. No. I have no idea why this is happening.
>
> 34196 total event
On Thu, 22 Nov 2007, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > but perhaps somehow we miss this fact and fail to turn off the lapic
> > clockevents drivers?
>
> Ok, I guess I'm lost. If I offline second CPU, I immediately get
> 1000Hz timer tick... is that expected?
Hmm. No. I have no idea why this is happening.
Hi!
> > > to me this has the feeling of lapic breakage in C2 mode. Does it get any
> > > better if you boot with 'nolapic'? (but that might in turn turn off
> > > high-res timers and nohz in essence) Thomas, any ideas?
> >
> > Hmm, lapic is considered unstable in c2 by default. You have to tell
Hi!
> > > Clock Event Device: hpet
> > > set_next_event: hpet_legacy_next_event
> > > set_mode: hpet_legacy_set_mode
> > > event_handler: tick_handle_oneshot_broadcast
> > >
> > > Clock Event Device: lapic
> > > set_next_event: lapic_next_event
> > > set_mode: lapic_timer_setup
Hi!
> > > > > and send us the output? (Enabling CONFIG_TIMER_STATS,
> > > > > CONFIG_SCHED_DEBUG and CONFIG_SCHEDSTATS would maximize the amount
> > > > > of information.)
> > > >
> > > > This was w/o hpet=disable . Do you want me to test with hpet=disable?
> > >
> > > no, this is fine. You've
* Thomas Gleixner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Pavel Machek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > > and send us the output? (Enabling CONFIG_TIMER_STATS,
> > > > CONFIG_SCHED_DEBUG and CONFIG_SCHEDSTATS would maximize the amount
> > > > of info
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Pavel Machek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > and send us the output? (Enabling CONFIG_TIMER_STATS,
> > > CONFIG_SCHED_DEBUG and CONFIG_SCHEDSTATS would maximize the amount
> > > of information.)
> >
> > This was w/o hpet=disable . Do you want me
* Pavel Machek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > and send us the output? (Enabling CONFIG_TIMER_STATS,
> > CONFIG_SCHED_DEBUG and CONFIG_SCHEDSTATS would maximize the amount
> > of information.)
>
> This was w/o hpet=disable . Do you want me to test with hpet=disable?
no, this is fine. You've go
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007, Pavel Machek wrote:
> On unloaded x60 system, 2.6.24-rc3 (tainted-pavel-so if someone can
> reproduce it, it would be helpful):
Can you please provide your .config ?
tglx
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
* Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > hpet-disable helps.. a bit. 200msec latencies are gone. (What is
> > used for wakeups in this case?)
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ while true; do time sleep 0.01; done
> > 0.00user 0.00system 0.01 (0m0.013s) elapsed 22.96%CPU
> > 0.00user 0.00system 0
* Pavel Machek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > 0.00user 0.00system 0.08 (0m0.081s) elapsed 3.71%CPU
> > > 0.00user 0.00system 0.01 (0m0.013s) elapsed 23.33%CPU
> > > 0.00user 0.00system 0.01 (0m0.019s) elapsed 15.92%CPU
> > >
> > > nohz=off helps a lot. while true; do time sleep 0.0; done does
Hi!
> > On unloaded x60 system, 2.6.24-rc3 (tainted-pavel-so if someone can
> > reproduce it, it would be helpful):
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ while true; do time sleep 0.01; done
> > 0.00user 0.00system 0.01 (0m0.013s) elapsed 30.71%CPU
> > 0.00user 0.00system 0.02 (0m0.024s) elapsed 8.36%CPU
* Pavel Machek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On unloaded x60 system, 2.6.24-rc3 (tainted-pavel-so if someone can
> reproduce it, it would be helpful):
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ while true; do time sleep 0.01; done
> 0.00user 0.00system 0.01 (0m0.013s) elapsed 30.71%CPU
> 0.00user 0.00syst
Hi!
On unloaded x60 system, 2.6.24-rc3 (tainted-pavel-so if someone can
reproduce it, it would be helpful):
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ while true; do time sleep 0.01; done
0.00user 0.00system 0.01 (0m0.013s) elapsed 30.71%CPU
0.00user 0.00system 0.02 (0m0.024s) elapsed 8.36%CPU
0.00user 0.00system 0.01
22 matches
Mail list logo
