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
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 problem is we
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 is
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.
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 trying to resume
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.
Can you
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
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
* 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
* 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.
> >
> > >
* 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.
Both requirements
* George Anzinger george@mvista.com [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
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
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
> 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
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
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
>
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
There
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 code
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
will
* 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
* 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
* 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 were a couple of
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 cpu
* 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
with the
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
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
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 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 couple of
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:
> > > > >
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
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
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
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
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
* 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
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
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
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
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 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 noise.
* 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 much
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 Lindgen
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 enter C3
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_interrupt(int
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 (ping -f)
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 issue (tested
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 is an
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 running this all
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:
This is the
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 set as
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.
Is there
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 PROTECTED]. Patch
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. This code
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 enough
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
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 is an
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 that I wanted to
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 Core.
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. The
last
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
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 starting
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 synaptics
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 PROTECTED]. Patch
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
88 matches
Mail list logo
