On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 10:36:39PM -0400, Hrishikesh wrote:
> When running powertop, I notice that there is a dramatic drop in C3 state
> residency when running the patched kernel. This happens when you run a
> patched kernel but without the NO_HZ and HR timers options disabled. C3
> state residenc
On Sat, Oct 13, 2007 at 04:56:39AM +, Ahmad Sharif wrote:
> I know this might be counter-intuitive and completely in the
> opposite direction of what people use UML for, but I have a question
> regarding accessing host's files from within UML (from the UML kernel,
> not user). Having said that,
Jeff,
This is when I patch the UML kernel with the NO_HZ patches that you put up
last month.. on 2.6.23-rc6-mm1. Powertop is running on the host kernel and
tells you which process wake up the processor from idle the most and also
which the offending function is (in this case, it shows it to be
do_n
On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 12:16:18PM -0400, Hrishikesh wrote:
> This is when I patch the UML kernel with the NO_HZ patches that you put up
> last month.. on 2.6.23-rc6-mm1.
Hmmm, that's exactly the opposite of what I would expect. A idle
non-NO_HZ UML should be waking up 100 times/sec, while I see
Ok the straces do seem to tell the story; they follow below:
for the case where is the kernel is patched and NO_HZ enabled,
waitpid(3989, [{WIFSTOPPED(s) && WSTOPSIG(s) == 133}], WSTOPPED) = 3989
gettimeofday({1192649136, 409637}, NULL) = 0
gettimeofday({1192649136, 409698}, NULL) = 0
setitimer(I
On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 03:43:01PM -0400, Hrishikesh wrote:
> Ok the straces do seem to tell the story; they follow below:
Except they're telling the wrong story:
> for the case where is the kernel is patched and NO_HZ enabled,
> {it_interval={0, 0}, it_value={0, 91986}}) = 0
> nanosleep({0, 919
No, I think I haven't been clear enough. The story is right :-) When it is
"busy-looping" like in the second case is when the C3 residency comes down,
as expected. Like you said, it looks broken, and has to be fixed.
Regards,
Hrishikesh
On 10/17/07, Jeff Dike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Wed,
