You probably should move this conversation over to Jira(sign up, find the appropriate issue, and provide a patch).
If it means anything I thought I'd give this a try. I changed both timeouts on the ATS v4.0.2 codebase. On Mac OS X my idle CPU usage went from 0.7% down to 0.2%. On CentOS Linux VM my idle CPU usage went from about 1% to 0.3%. Hope this helps. Regards, On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 11:02 AM, Ziv Maor <zm...@cuppcomputing.com> wrote: > Hi, > > Can anyone evaluate the impact of changing the timeout values in these 2 > places? > > Thanks, > > Ziv > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On 12 Dec 2013, at 17:43, Reindl Harald <h.rei...@thelounge.net> wrote: > > > > that's a long existing issue which is a show-stopper to let > > ATS run on build and testing-VM's because the VM eats > > 150 MHz CPU idle while any other guest goes down to 0 > > > > there is a bugtracker-entry somewhere > > > > one may say 150 MHz is not much, on the other hand the > > backup-host with 12 replication slaves and a few WinXP > > test-machines eats around 400 MHz all the time > > > > Am 12.12.2013 16:35, schrieb Ziv Maor: > >> I'm using the ATS on an ARM based chip, and noticed that when I'm > running the server in IDLE state (i.e. no client is connected to it) the > CPU usage of the ATS is around 10%. Since I'm using an ARM chip this is not > a negligible amount of CPU usage. > >> > >> After reviewing the code, it looks like the fault is in these 2 places: > >> > >> - the timeout parameter supplied to the epoll_wait() function in > NetHandler::mainNetEvent(). currently timeout is set to 10 milliseconds. > >> > >> - the timeout parameter supplied to the ink_cond_timedwait() function > in aio_thread_main(). again set to 10 milliseconds. > >> > >> increasing the value of just the epoll_wait timeout from 10 > milliseconds to 100 milliseconds, results in an excessive CPU usage of the > AIO thread (almost reaches 60%). Increasing the value of the timeout of the > AIO thread, again from 10 milliseconds to 100 milliseconds finally balanced > the the thread's CPU usage and reaches the desirable effect of 0% CPU usage > >> > >> Has anyone encountered the same issue or would like to comment on that? > and if this is the correct way to fix this issue? > > > > > -- ____________________________________________________________ Adam W. Dace <colonelforbi...@gmail.com> Phone: (815) 355-5848 Instant Messenger: AIM & Yahoo! IM - colonelforbin74 | ICQ - #39374451 Microsoft Messenger - colonelforbi...@live.com <a...@turing.com> Google Profile: https://plus.google.com/u/0/109309036874332290399/about
