> Might also be useful to add an extra option to "top" to reduce the
> polling frequency if the system is otherwise idle. A fixed 30-sec
> timer and a deferrable 1-sec timer or somesuch?
Hmm, i think the current implementation is per CPU. top really would
like to have one that applies to
On Mar 29, 2007, at 07:41:12, Andi Kleen wrote:
ondemand is the biggest offender and the patch below reduces the
number of interrupts by 50% or more (depending on HZ) on different
test systems here.
Cool!
Yes. There are quite a few other timers inside kernel that can be
migrated. I will
> ondemand is the biggest offender and the patch below reduces the number of
> interrupts by 50% or more (depending on HZ) on different test systems here.
Cool!
> Yes. There are quite a few other timers inside kernel that can be
> migrated. I will use timer_stats and track others and send in
ondemand is the biggest offender and the patch below reduces the number of
interrupts by 50% or more (depending on HZ) on different test systems here.
Cool!
Yes. There are quite a few other timers inside kernel that can be
migrated. I will use timer_stats and track others and send in the
On Mar 29, 2007, at 07:41:12, Andi Kleen wrote:
ondemand is the biggest offender and the patch below reduces the
number of interrupts by 50% or more (depending on HZ) on different
test systems here.
Cool!
Yes. There are quite a few other timers inside kernel that can be
migrated. I will
Might also be useful to add an extra option to top to reduce the
polling frequency if the system is otherwise idle. A fixed 30-sec
timer and a deferrable 1-sec timer or somesuch?
Hmm, i think the current implementation is per CPU. top really would
like to have one that applies to all
On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 05:01:59PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 16:00:21 -0700
> Venki Pallipadi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Please drop the patch you included yesterday and two incremental patches and
> > use the patch below.
>
> As you saw, I went and turned it into
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 16:00:21 -0700
Venki Pallipadi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please drop the patch you included yesterday and two incremental patches and
> use the patch below.
As you saw, I went and turned it into an incremental patch again. It makes
it easier to see what changed, but
Andrew,
Please drop the patch you included yesterday and two incremental patches and
use the patch below.
This patch is - yesterday's patch + Your tidy cleanup +
minor changes based on comments from Oleg and Andi. This is a lot
cleaner (and smaller) than earlier patches.
Thanks,
Venki
Andrew,
Please drop the patch you included yesterday and two incremental patches and
use the patch below.
This patch is - yesterday's patch + Your tidy cleanup +
minor changes based on comments from Oleg and Andi. This is a lot
cleaner (and smaller) than earlier patches.
Thanks,
Venki
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 16:00:21 -0700
Venki Pallipadi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please drop the patch you included yesterday and two incremental patches and
use the patch below.
As you saw, I went and turned it into an incremental patch again. It makes
it easier to see what changed, but harder to
On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 05:01:59PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 16:00:21 -0700
Venki Pallipadi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please drop the patch you included yesterday and two incremental patches and
use the patch below.
As you saw, I went and turned it into an
12 matches
Mail list logo
