9, 2005 at 05:03:24PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > 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
>
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 demonstr
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 tick solution merged before 2.6.14.
> >
> > Anyone care to give a status report? Con, do you feel that the last
> > ver
hedrange.diff
schedbatch2.9.diff
sched-iso3.1.patch
smp-nice-support7.diff
1g_lowmem1_i386.diff
defaultcfq.diff
isobatch_ionice2.diff
rt_ionice.diff
pdflush-tweaks.patch
hz-default_values.patch
vm-mapped.diff
vm-lots_watermark.diff
vm-background_scan.diff
2613ck1-version.diff
vm-swap-prefetch.pa
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, b
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.
> >
> > Che
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 numb
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):
http://ck.ko
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?
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 w
; 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,
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 stat
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 triv
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 sin
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 messa
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 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 proble
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 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 speed
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 s
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
> delays
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 o
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
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
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
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
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 to
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,
>
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
> > thi
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 mos
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 value
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):
http://ck.ko
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 fo
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 cod
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 ana
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 leave a
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
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 10:02 am, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 07:09 am, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > > > > As promised, here is an updated patch for the newly released
> > > > > 2.6.13-rc5. Boots and runs fine on P4HT (S
On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 07:09 am, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > > > As promised, here is an updated patch for the newly released
> > > > 2.6.13-rc5. Boots and runs fine on P4HT (SMP+SMT kernel) built with
> > > > gcc 4.0.1.
> > >
> > > Doesn't compile for me w/ gcc 3.4.4:
> >
> > Thanks for the report
On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 07:12, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > > > As promised, here is an updated patch for the newly released
> > > > 2.6.13-rc5. Boots and runs fine on P4HT (SMP+SMT kernel) built with
> > > > gcc 4.0.1.
> > >
> > > Doesn't compile for me w/ gcc 3.4.4:
> >
> > Thanks for the report. T
On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 22:05, Gabriel Devenyi wrote:
> Con Kolivas wrote:
> > I have to think about it. This seems a problem only on one type of cpu
> > for some strange reason (lemme guess; athlon?) and indeed leaving out the
> > sleep 1 followed by the check made results far le
On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 21:44, Gabriel Devenyi wrote:
> Hi Con,
>
> You must hate me by now...
No. A bug report is a bug report. I hate the fact that I coded up 2000 lines
of code and am still suffering from a problem in the same 10 lines that I did
in version .01. PEBKAC.
> The "Gaming" benchmark
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, onl
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
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 2.6.1
Interbench is a benchmark application is designed to benchmark interactivity
in Linux.
Direct download link:
http://ck.kolivas.org/apps/interbench/interbench-0.27.tar.bz2
Web page:
http://interbench.kolivas.org
Changes:
Standard deviation and average latency calculation was corrected. Gaming
s
On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 09:25 am, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 09:25 am, Peter Williams wrote:
> > Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 22:01, Gabriel Devenyi wrote:
> > >>You haven't quite completely fixed the SD calculations it seems:
> > &
On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 09:25 am, Peter Williams wrote:
> Con Kolivas wrote:
> > On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 22:01, Gabriel Devenyi wrote:
> >>You haven't quite completely fixed the SD calculations it seems:
> >>
> >>
> >>--- Benchmarking simulated cpu
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 sys
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-rc
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 cou
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-
On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 22:01, Gabriel Devenyi wrote:
> You haven't quite completely fixed the SD calculations it seems:
>
>
> --- Benchmarking simulated cpu of Gaming in the presence of simulated---
> LoadLatency +/- SD (ms) Max Latency % Desired CPU
> None 2.44 +/- nan 48.6
This benchmark application is designed to benchmark interactivity in Linux.
Direct download link:
http://ck.kolivas.org/apps/interbench/interbench-0.26.tar.bz2
Web site:
http://interbench.kolivas.org
Changes since v0.24:
v0.25:
The timekeeping thread of background load no longer runs SCHED_FIFO
nto the kernel so that is now done.
Cheers,
Con
---
This is the dynamic ticks patch for i386 as written by Tony Lindgen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and Tuukka Tikkanen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
and modified by Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
Signed-off-by: Con Kolivas <
On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 00:02, Lee Revell wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-08-02 at 09:10 -0400, Stephen Clark wrote:
> > Maybe new desktop systems - but what about the tens of millions of old
> > systems that don't.
>
> Does anyone really give a shit about saving power on the desktop anyway?
> This is basically a
On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 00:01, Avuton Olrich wrote:
> OK, I rolled my own patch, 2.6.13-rc4-ck1-reiser4+this patch and it
> appears to be running on my desktop Asus A7N8X very well:
>
> I am running with Local APIC/IO-APIC/APIC Timer and forceapic. Time
> does not appear to be running slow, and I do not
On Tue, 2 Aug 2005 22:58, Prakash Punnoor wrote:
> Con Kolivas schrieb:
> > As promised, here is an updated patch for the newly released 2.6.13-rc5.
> > Boots and runs fine on P4HT (SMP+SMT kernel) built with gcc 4.0.1.
>
> Doesn't compile for me w/ gcc 3.4.4:
Thanks f
On Tue, 2 Aug 2005 22:58, Prakash Punnoor wrote:
> Con Kolivas schrieb:
> > As promised, here is an updated patch for the newly released 2.6.13-rc5.
> > Boots and runs fine on P4HT (SMP+SMT kernel) built with gcc 4.0.1.
>
> Doesn't compile for me w/ gcc 3.4.4:
>
&
]>.
This version of the patch includes code style cleanups by Con Kolivas.
Signed-off-by: Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
arch/i386/Kconfig | 33 +
arch/i386/kernel/Makefile |1
arch/i386/kernel/apic.c | 19 +++
arch/i386/kernel/dyn-tic
On Tue, 2 Aug 2005 21:31, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [050802 03:54]:
>
> > I need to ask you why you think limiting the maximum Hz is a bad idea? On
> > a laptop, say we have set the powersave governor, we have already told
> > t
On Tue, 2 Aug 2005 18:15, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [050802 00:36]:
> > On Tue, 2 Aug 2005 05:17 pm, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > > But this you can verify by booting to single user mode and then running
> > > pmstats 5, and if ticks is
On Tue, 2 Aug 2005 05:17 pm, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Lee Revell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [050801 23:24]:
> > On Tue, 2005-08-02 at 15:56 +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2 Aug 2005 03:52 pm, Lee Revell wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2005-08-02 at 15:49 +1000, Con
On Tue, 2 Aug 2005 05:10 pm, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [050801 18:24]:
> > Hi Tony, LKML
> >
> > Since there appears to be renewed interest of late in dynamic ticks...
> >
> > You didn't respond with my last patch for dyna
On Tue, 2 Aug 2005 05:08 pm, Peter Williams wrote:
> Con Kolivas wrote:
> > Interbench is a Linux Kernel Interactivity Benchmark.
> >
> > Direct download:
> > http://ck.kolivas.org/apps/interbench/interbench-0.24.tar.bz2
> > Web:
> > http://interbench.koliv
On Tue, 2 Aug 2005 03:52 pm, Lee Revell wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-08-02 at 15:49 +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > As a crude data point of idle system running a full kde desktop
> > environment on
> > powersave with minimal backlight and just chatting on IRC I find it's
>
On Tue, 2 Aug 2005 02:43 pm, Con Kolivas wrote:
> This has slightly more build fixes than the last one I posted and boots and
> runs fine on my laptop. So far at absolute idle it appears this pentiumM
> 1.7 is claiming to have _25%_ more battery life. I'll need to investigate
> f
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. There is significant renewed interest by the lkml
audience for such a feature which is why I'm butchering your code (sorry
Hi Tony, LKML
Since there appears to be renewed interest of late in dynamic ticks...
You didn't respond with my last patch for dynamic ticks so I assume that's
because you threw up when you saw what a mess it is. Anyway I'm sorry for
sending you that naive mess the first time around.
Here is
On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 09:26, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 at 17:02:07 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > do wakeup-balancing only if the wakeup-CPU is idle.
> >
> > this prevents excessive wakeup-balancing while the system is highly
> > loaded, but helps spread out the workload on partly idle
On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 10:15, Puneet Vyas wrote:
> Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> >/* fp.c: i387 benchmark/test program */
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] C]$ cc FPUtest.c -o FPUtest
>
> FPUtest.c: In function `main':
>
> FPUtest.c:103: warning: passing arg 2 of `sched_setaffinity' makes
> integer from pointer without a
On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 21:47, Gabriel Devenyi wrote:
> Thats correct, does it need it?
For the memload, yes it does. I guess for the next version I can drop memload
if it can't read the swap information rather than not running at all.
Cheers,
Con
> Con Kolivas wrote:
> > On Fri,
On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 21:11, Gabriel Devenyi wrote:
> Hello Con,
>
> Attempting to run this on my 2.6.12-ck3s system results in the following
> error:
>
> sawtooth interbench-0.24 # ./interbench
> loops_per_ms unknown; benchmarking...
> 690936 loops_per_ms saved to file interbench.loops_per_ms
>
> Co
Interbench is a Linux Kernel Interactivity Benchmark.
Direct download:
http://ck.kolivas.org/apps/interbench/interbench-0.24.tar.bz2
Web:
http://interbench.kolivas.org
Changes:
3 new loads were added:
Gaming benchmark:
This simulates an unlocked frame rate cpu intensive 3d gaming environment. It
h patch-dynamic-tick-2.6.12-rc6-050610-1 applied
cc'ed lkml just for public record of the patch.
Cheers,
Con
Move most of the dynamic ticks code that is #ifdef'd out of code paths and
put it into dyn-tick.c
Signed-off-by: Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
arch/i386/kernel/Makefi
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 21:28, Christian Hesse wrote:
> On Wednesday 27 July 2005 13:11, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > HZ-864.diff
> > +My take on the never ending config HZ debate. Apart from the number not
> > being pleasing on the eyes, a HZ value that isn't a multiple of
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 2.6.12.3):
http://ck.ko
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 01:34 pm, Lee Revell wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 20:31 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Fri, 22 Jul 2005, Lee Revell wrote:
> > > Con's interactivity benchmark looks quite promising for finding
> > > scheduler related interactivity regressions.
> >
> > I doubt that _any_ o
Interbench is a benchmarking application designed to emulate the CPU
scheduling behavior of interactive tasks and measure their scheduling latency
and jitter. It does this first with the tasks on their own and then in the
presence of various background loads.
Homepage:
http://interbench.kolivas
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 12:46 pm, Gabriel Devenyi wrote:
> I've been using the the -ck patchset for a very long time, and I recently
> switched to a amd64 arch. I found that while my throughput improved, my
> system responsiveness has "felt" much lower than it did on my old x86
> machine.
>
> Now that
401 - 500 of 592 matches
Mail list logo
