From: hector@marcansoft.com
To: "Linux-Kernel" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: "Pasi Sjoholm" <ptsjohol@cc.jyu.fi>
Subject: Re: ksoftirqd uses 99% CPU triggered by network traffic (maybeRLT-8139 related)
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 12:47:42 -0500 (CDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1408.81.36.109.252.1091036862.squirrel@www.marcansoft.com> (raw)
> On Tue, 27 Jul 2004, Robert Olsson wrote:
>
>> > Yeah, when the ksoftirqd is taking all the cpu it will be like that,
>> but
>> > when the kernel is behaving normally the starving diff is between
>> 0->1sec.
>> Well ksoftirqd makes your kernel load just visible which is good and
>> ksofirqd gets accounted for this when softirq's get deferred to it.
>> It may look like goes from 0 to 100% but thats probably not the case.
>> The problem is we can starve userland at high loads. As said we were
>> trying some way to cure this I may have some old patch if you like to
>> try.
>
> Ok, as I said before I'm willing to test your patches.
>
> It would be nice that one could use the full capacity of his/her computer.
> This is not a big problem for everyday use for a workstation but prevents
> 2.6-series to be used in production-enviroments in the servers.
> But hey.. we need to do some work and maybe we will resolve this. =)
>
> --
> Pasi Sjöholm
Hi all, and first of all thanks for all the feedback!
Currently i'm on vacation (reading this through webmail, if you notice
anything strange please tell me) and I won't be able to test anything, but
Monday I'm back.
As I mentioned in the first e-mail, I can reproduce this under heavy
_packet_ load, UDP load actually, with 5-20 byte packets at a moderate
rate. No other CPU usage is needed to reproduce it, so it seems to be more
related to the number of packets than to the bytes/sec. Presumably more
packets means more interrupts, hence this behaviour. Also, the fact that
this packet stream is actually a debug-mesage protocol stream which
basically gets dumped to the screen (each UDP packet is one line) might
account for a slightly increased CPU load.
I'm willing to test any patches and other stuff that may be needed, I have
free time currently.
BTW this actually is a pretty big pain in the ass for me, since I need
those messages to get feedback from an application I'm developing. I can
reduce them, but then I get less feedback.
This seems to be something resource-related since the first 15-30 minutes
all goes well, but it just starts (not having touched the computer) and
then there's no going back. I can (with some effort) close down X and
telnet in, but performance is very bad (even the framebuffer screen takes
some time to refresh after a line scroll--and that's a kernel job AFAIK)
BTW when I get back I'll test it with the old 10mbps card that I use for
the external connection (internet) to see if it still happens with the
other driver. I might be able to try other cards as well.
reply other threads:[~2004-07-28 17:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: [no followups] expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1408.81.36.109.252.1091036862.squirrel@www.marcansoft.com \
--to=hector@marcansoft.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ptsjohol@cc.jyu.fi \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®