On Monday 07 January 2008 16:33, Mark Lord wrote:
> Len Brown wrote:
> > 1. Why does VMware need max_cstate=1 to load quickly?
> ..
>
> Eh? Nothing to do with "loading" anything,
> but rather it's simple responsiveness to guest keyboard
> input that we're experiencing trouble with.
> The guest
Len Brown wrote:
1. Why does VMware need max_cstate=1 to load quickly?
..
Eh? Nothing to do with "loading" anything,
but rather it's simple responsiveness to guest keyboard
input that we're experiencing trouble with.
The guest OS is probably "broken" in that regard,
but setting max_cstate=1
1. Why does VMware need max_cstate=1 to load quickly?
It should not, and the fact that it does means
that something somewhere is seriously broken.
2. Why does the "max_csate=1" workaround help only
on the dual-core boxes, while the single-core
boxes still fail to load quickly?
I'm
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
..
if we take a step back; Mark afaics only wants to put 1 in there...
And that makes sense; either you want the "no latency" C1, or you want the lot
(esp given that C2 and deeper are at the whim of the bios, what they mean varies
over time. Actually even C1 does that on
Andrew Morton wrote:
..
umm, OK, I queued it for 2.6.24. I'll give people a day or so to comment
on this.
I had to invent some silly changlelog for it. Please review it for
accuracy and completeness?
..
From: Venki Pallipadi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
This was writeable in 2.6.23 but the cpuidle
IL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: + restore-missing-sysfs-max_cstate-attr.patch
>added to -mm tree
>
>On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 16:34:16 -0500 Mark Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Venki Pallipadi wrote:
>> > Reintroduce run time configurable max_cstate for !
On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 23:18:48 -0800
Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 16:34:16 -0500 Mark Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Venki Pallipadi wrote:
> > > Reintroduce run time configurable max_cstate for !CPU_IDLE case.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Venkatesh Pallipadi
On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 23:18:48 -0800
Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 16:34:16 -0500 Mark Lord [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Venki Pallipadi wrote:
Reintroduce run time configurable max_cstate for !CPU_IDLE case.
Signed-off-by: Venkatesh Pallipadi [EMAIL
Andrew Morton wrote:
..
umm, OK, I queued it for 2.6.24. I'll give people a day or so to comment
on this.
I had to invent some silly changlelog for it. Please review it for
accuracy and completeness?
..
From: Venki Pallipadi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This was writeable in 2.6.23 but the cpuidle
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
..
if we take a step back; Mark afaics only wants to put 1 in there...
And that makes sense; either you want the no latency C1, or you want the lot
(esp given that C2 and deeper are at the whim of the bios, what they mean varies
over time. Actually even C1 does that on
1. Why does VMware need max_cstate=1 to load quickly?
It should not, and the fact that it does means
that something somewhere is seriously broken.
2. Why does the max_csate=1 workaround help only
on the dual-core boxes, while the single-core
boxes still fail to load quickly?
I'm glad
Len Brown wrote:
1. Why does VMware need max_cstate=1 to load quickly?
..
Eh? Nothing to do with loading anything,
but rather it's simple responsiveness to guest keyboard
input that we're experiencing trouble with.
The guest OS is probably broken in that regard,
but setting max_cstate=1 makes
On Monday 07 January 2008 16:33, Mark Lord wrote:
Len Brown wrote:
1. Why does VMware need max_cstate=1 to load quickly?
..
Eh? Nothing to do with loading anything,
but rather it's simple responsiveness to guest keyboard
input that we're experiencing trouble with.
The guest OS is
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 16:34:16 -0500 Mark Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Venki Pallipadi wrote:
> > Reintroduce run time configurable max_cstate for !CPU_IDLE case.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Venkatesh Pallipadi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > Index: linux-2.6.24-rc/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
> >
Venki Pallipadi wrote:
Reintroduce run time configurable max_cstate for !CPU_IDLE case.
Signed-off-by: Venkatesh Pallipadi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Index: linux-2.6.24-rc/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
===
---
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 16:34:16 -0500 Mark Lord [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Venki Pallipadi wrote:
Reintroduce run time configurable max_cstate for !CPU_IDLE case.
Signed-off-by: Venkatesh Pallipadi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Index: linux-2.6.24-rc/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
Venki Pallipadi wrote:
Reintroduce run time configurable max_cstate for !CPU_IDLE case.
Signed-off-by: Venkatesh Pallipadi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Index: linux-2.6.24-rc/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
===
---
Pallipadi, Venkatesh wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Mark Lord [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
..
Okay, with !CONFIG_CPU_IDLE, this works fine -- same as 2.6.23
and earlier.
Good to know. Atleast we do not have a regression for 2.6.24 now.
..
Agreed. We're happy here, for now.
Pallipadi, Venkatesh wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Mark Lord [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
..
Okay, with !CONFIG_CPU_IDLE, this works fine -- same as 2.6.23
and earlier.
Good to know. Atleast we do not have a regression for 2.6.24 now.
..
Agreed. We're happy here, for now.
ED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: + restore-missing-sysfs-max_cstate-attr.patch
>added to -mm tree
>
>Mark Lord wrote:
>> Venki Pallipadi wrote:
>>> Reintroduce run time configurable max_cstate for !CPU_IDLE case.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Venkatesh Pa
Mark Lord wrote:
Venki Pallipadi wrote:
Reintroduce run time configurable max_cstate for !CPU_IDLE case.
Signed-off-by: Venkatesh Pallipadi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Index: linux-2.6.24-rc/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
===
---
Mark Lord wrote:
Venki Pallipadi wrote:
Reintroduce run time configurable max_cstate for !CPU_IDLE case.
Signed-off-by: Venkatesh Pallipadi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Index: linux-2.6.24-rc/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
===
---
]
Subject: Re: + restore-missing-sysfs-max_cstate-attr.patch
added to -mm tree
Mark Lord wrote:
Venki Pallipadi wrote:
Reintroduce run time configurable max_cstate for !CPU_IDLE case.
Signed-off-by: Venkatesh Pallipadi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Index: linux-2.6.24-rc/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
Venki Pallipadi wrote:
Reintroduce run time configurable max_cstate for !CPU_IDLE case.
Signed-off-by: Venkatesh Pallipadi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Index: linux-2.6.24-rc/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
===
---
Reintroduce run time configurable max_cstate for !CPU_IDLE case.
Signed-off-by: Venkatesh Pallipadi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Index: linux-2.6.24-rc/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
===
--- linux-2.6.24-rc.orig/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
Reintroduce run time configurable max_cstate for !CPU_IDLE case.
Signed-off-by: Venkatesh Pallipadi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Index: linux-2.6.24-rc/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
===
--- linux-2.6.24-rc.orig/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: + restore-missing-sysfs-max_cstate-attr.patch
added to -mm tree
On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 16:06:20 -0800 "Pallipadi, Venkatesh"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Mark Lord [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January
PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: + restore-missing-sysfs-max_cstate-attr.patch
added to -mm tree
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 22:31:17 -0500
Mark Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 22:14:08 -0500
Mark Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wro
OTECTED]
>Subject: Re: + restore-missing-sysfs-max_cstate-attr.patch
>added to -mm tree
>
>On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 16:06:20 -0800 "Pallipadi, Venkatesh"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> >-Original Message-
>> >Fro
allipadi, Venkatesh; Andrew Morton; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; Ingo Molnar; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org;
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Subject: Re: + restore-missing-sysfs-max_cstate-attr.patch
> >added to -mm tree
> >
> >Arjan van de Ven
OTECTED]
>Subject: Re: + restore-missing-sysfs-max_cstate-attr.patch
>added to -mm tree
>
>Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 22:31:17 -0500
>> Mark Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>>>&g
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 22:31:17 -0500
Mark Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 22:14:08 -0500
Mark Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
in -mm there is.. the QoS stuff allows you to set maximum
tolerable
..
That's encouraging, I
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 22:31:17 -0500
Mark Lord [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 22:14:08 -0500
Mark Lord [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
in -mm there is.. the QoS stuff allows you to set maximum
tolerable
..
That's encouraging, I think,
: + restore-missing-sysfs-max_cstate-attr.patch
added to -mm tree
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 22:31:17 -0500
Mark Lord [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 22:14:08 -0500
Mark Lord [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
in -mm there is.. the QoS stuff allows you
PROTECTED]; Ingo Molnar; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org;
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: + restore-missing-sysfs-max_cstate-attr.patch
added to -mm tree
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 22:31:17 -0500
Mark Lord [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov
: + restore-missing-sysfs-max_cstate-attr.patch
added to -mm tree
On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 16:06:20 -0800 Pallipadi, Venkatesh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Mark Lord [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 3:42 PM
To: Arjan van de Ven
Cc: Pallipadi
PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: + restore-missing-sysfs-max_cstate-attr.patch
added to -mm tree
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 22:31:17 -0500
Mark Lord [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 22:14:08 -0500
Mark Lord [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
in -mm
PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: + restore-missing-sysfs-max_cstate-attr.patch
added to -mm tree
On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 16:06:20 -0800 Pallipadi, Venkatesh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Mark Lord [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 3:42 PM
To: Arjan
ernel@vger.kernel.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: + restore-missing-sysfs-max_cstate-attr.patch
>added to -mm tree
>
>Hi!
>
>> >It is not known whether Mark is actually writing to this
>> >thing. Perhaps
>> >read-only permissions would be a suitable f
Hi!
> >It is not known whether Mark is actually writing to this
> >thing. Perhaps
> >read-only permissions would be a suitable fix?
> >
>
> Exporting it as read only should be OK. We also need to know if there
> are hard user space dependency on writing to this from userspace.
Some people are
Hi!
It is not known whether Mark is actually writing to this
thing. Perhaps
read-only permissions would be a suitable fix?
Exporting it as read only should be OK. We also need to know if there
are hard user space dependency on writing to this from userspace.
Some people are
PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: + restore-missing-sysfs-max_cstate-attr.patch
added to -mm tree
Hi!
It is not known whether Mark is actually writing to this
thing. Perhaps
read-only permissions would be a suitable fix?
Exporting it as read only should be OK. We also need to know
On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 02:17:40 -0800
Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 22:14:08 -0500 Mark Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > latency. If your app cant take any latency, you should set
> > > those... and the side effect is that the kernel will not do
> > >
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 22:14:08 -0500 Mark Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > latency. If your app cant take any latency, you should set those... and
> > the side effect is that the kernel will not do long-latency C-states or
> > P-state transitions..
> ..
>
> I don't mind the cpufreq changing
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 22:14:08 -0500 Mark Lord [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
latency. If your app cant take any latency, you should set those... and
the side effect is that the kernel will not do long-latency C-states or
P-state transitions..
..
I don't mind the cpufreq changing (actually, I
On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 02:17:40 -0800
Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 22:14:08 -0500 Mark Lord [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
latency. If your app cant take any latency, you should set
those... and the side effect is that the kernel will not do
long-latency C-states
Mark Lord wrote:
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 22:44:25 -0500
Mark Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
all you need to do in your kernel module is call
...
set_acceptable_latency("mark", 5);
and to remove the constraint again you just do
remove_acceptable_latency("mark");
..
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 22:44:25 -0500
Mark Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
all you need to do in your kernel module is call
add_latency_constraint("mark_wants_his_mouse", 5);
Okay, and how to change it back again? (thanks)
sorry I misremember it's called
Mark Lord wrote:
..
And I just figured out the powertop: it needed the kernel timers
patch from the powertop site that was originally for 2.6.21..
Any chance of somebody actually pushing that patch upstream some year ??
Patch reproduced here for interest's sake only.
Hey, look who's on the
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 22:31:17 -0500
Mark Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 22:14:08 -0500
Mark Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
in -mm there is.. the QoS stuff allows you to set maximum
tolerable
..
That's encouraging, I
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 22:14:08 -0500
Mark Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
in -mm there is.. the QoS stuff allows you to set maximum tolerable
..
That's encouraging, I think, but not for 2.6.24.
latency. If your app cant take any latency, you should set those...
and
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 22:14:08 -0500
Mark Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > in -mm there is.. the QoS stuff allows you to set maximum tolerable
> ..
>
> That's encouraging, I think, but not for 2.6.24.
>
> > latency. If your app cant take any latency, you should set those...
> > and the side
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 21:52:40 -0500
Mark Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Pallipadi, Venkatesh wrote:
Exporting it as read only should be OK. We also need to know if
there are hard user space dependency on writing to this from
userspace.
..
Well, actually.. my
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 21:52:40 -0500
Mark Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Pallipadi, Venkatesh wrote:
> >
> > Exporting it as read only should be OK. We also need to know if
> > there are hard user space dependency on writing to this from
> > userspace.
> ..
>
> Well, actually.. my scripts
Pallipadi, Venkatesh wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 14:06:55 -0800
"Pallipadi, Venkatesh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Please dont go off-list like this. I put Mark's original
mailing list cc's
back.
Sorry for missing some cc's earlier. I blindly did a reply-all to the
mm-commits mail I got.
>On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 14:06:55 -0800
>"Pallipadi, Venkatesh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Please dont go off-list like this. I put Mark's original
>mailing list cc's
>back.
Sorry for missing some cc's earlier. I blindly did a reply-all to the
mm-commits mail I got.
>> I will have to Nack
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 14:06:55 -0800
"Pallipadi, Venkatesh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Please dont go off-list like this. I put Mark's original mailing list cc's
back.
>
> I will have to Nack this. The reason max_cstate was initentionally
> removed due to couple of reasons:
It broke userspace
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 22:14:08 -0500
Mark Lord [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
in -mm there is.. the QoS stuff allows you to set maximum tolerable
..
That's encouraging, I think, but not for 2.6.24.
latency. If your app cant take any latency, you should set those...
and the
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 22:44:25 -0500
Mark Lord [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
all you need to do in your kernel module is call
add_latency_constraint(mark_wants_his_mouse, 5);
Okay, and how to change it back again? (thanks)
sorry I misremember it's called
Mark Lord wrote:
..
And I just figured out the powertop: it needed the kernel timers
patch from the powertop site that was originally for 2.6.21..
Any chance of somebody actually pushing that patch upstream some year ??
Patch reproduced here for interest's sake only.
Hey, look who's on the
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 22:31:17 -0500
Mark Lord [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 22:14:08 -0500
Mark Lord [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
in -mm there is.. the QoS stuff allows you to set maximum
tolerable
..
That's encouraging, I think,
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 21:52:40 -0500
Mark Lord [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pallipadi, Venkatesh wrote:
Exporting it as read only should be OK. We also need to know if
there are hard user space dependency on writing to this from
userspace.
..
Well, actually.. my scripts
Pallipadi, Venkatesh wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 14:06:55 -0800
Pallipadi, Venkatesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please dont go off-list like this. I put Mark's original
mailing list cc's
back.
Sorry for missing some cc's earlier. I blindly did a reply-all to the
mm-commits mail I got.
I
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 14:06:55 -0800
Pallipadi, Venkatesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please dont go off-list like this. I put Mark's original
mailing list cc's
back.
Sorry for missing some cc's earlier. I blindly did a reply-all to the
mm-commits mail I got.
I will have to Nack this. The
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 22:14:08 -0500
Mark Lord [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
in -mm there is.. the QoS stuff allows you to set maximum tolerable
..
That's encouraging, I think, but not for 2.6.24.
latency. If your app cant take any latency, you should set those...
and the side effect is that
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 21:52:40 -0500
Mark Lord [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pallipadi, Venkatesh wrote:
Exporting it as read only should be OK. We also need to know if
there are hard user space dependency on writing to this from
userspace.
..
Well, actually.. my scripts have a firm need
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 14:06:55 -0800
Pallipadi, Venkatesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please dont go off-list like this. I put Mark's original mailing list cc's
back.
I will have to Nack this. The reason max_cstate was initentionally
removed due to couple of reasons:
It broke userspace without
Mark Lord wrote:
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 22:44:25 -0500
Mark Lord [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
all you need to do in your kernel module is call
...
set_acceptable_latency(mark, 5);
and to remove the constraint again you just do
remove_acceptable_latency(mark);
..
Then why
68 matches
Mail list logo
