From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263807AbUEXBrv (ORCPT ); Sun, 23 May 2004 21:47:51 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263815AbUEXBrv (ORCPT ); Sun, 23 May 2004 21:47:51 -0400 Received: from lakermmtao11.cox.net ([68.230.240.28]:22963 "EHLO lakermmtao11.cox.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263807AbUEXBrt (ORCPT ); Sun, 23 May 2004 21:47:49 -0400 Message-ID: <32786.192.168.0.243.1085363267.squirrel@webmail.rtwsecurenet.com> In-Reply-To: <20040522172724.6c804068.akpm@osdl.org> References: <32847.192.168.0.243.1085236590.squirrel@webmail.rtwsecurenet.com> <20040522172724.6c804068.akpm@osdl.org> Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 20:47:47 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: 2.6 high CPU utilization with multimedia apps {Scanned} From: rettw@rtwnetwork.com To: "Andrew Morton" Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal X-rtwnetwork.com-MailScanner: Found to be clean Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Andrew, > This could be an artifact from the instrumentation - if > the application is > doing short bursts of work the 1000Hz clock may be > providing more accurate > sampling. > > In 2.6, edit include/asm/param.h and set HZ to 100 and > then redo the > measurement. > That did it - the CPU utilization is back down to what I am used to seeing on 2.4. - Now, the question is - what was more accurate? Was 2.4 producing abnormally low numbers? Or 2.6 abnormally high? One interesting thing, just below the define statements in the file mentioned above is a conditional define that sets HZ to 100 anyway, if not already defined - it almost seems that the 1000 value is bogus to begin with. Thanks again for the help - this has been quite a mystery.... Thanks, Rett Walters