From: Steven Noonan <steven@uplinklabs.net>
To: ext-eero.nurkkala@nokia.com
Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
Venkatesh Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [BISECTED] "conservative" cpufreq governor broken
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 04:22:54 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <f488382f0910060422t420ade8bvdefbf3e3d0720266@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1254825795.31336.204.camel@eenurkka-desktop>
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 3:43 AM, Eero Nurkkala
<ext-eero.nurkkala@nokia.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-10-06 at 12:22 +0200, ext Steven Noonan wrote:
>>
>> I would suspect you have to have CONFIG_NO_HZ enabled to be able to
>> reproduce the issue (considering the title of the bisected commit and
>> my own config). Do you have it enabled?
>>
>
> Yes, it's enabled.
>
>> > And another round:
>> >
>> > cpufreq stats: OP1:16,78%, OP2:0,24%, OP3:5,14%, OP4:77,83% (72)
>> >
>> > Just once more after doing nothing:
>> > OP1:7,41%, OP2:0,11%, OP3:2,38%, OP4:90,10% (82)
>> >
>> > So I can't agree it's broken. The patch you bisected, actually filtered
>> > out such phenomenon, in which an IRQ made the cpufreq framework
>> > occasionally think we were idling, although we were not. So you got
>> > "bonus" idle time that shouldn't been there in the first place. Now that
>> > the "bonus" idle time is not there, your system load may indeed be so
>> > high that the system never spends 80% or more time in idle? Could that
>> > be the case? Of course, even though I can't agree it's broken, doesn't
>> > mean it isn't somehow broken ;) It'd be nice to get info on other
>> > systems as well...
>>
>> Interestingly, "ondemand" (the governor fixed by the bisected commit)
>> works fine. "conservative" is the only broken one.
>>
>
> If you took timestamps in /arch/x86/kernel/process_**.c:
> (let's assume process_64.c) in cpu_idle()
> around enter_idle(); and __exit_idle(), took the diff,
> added the diffs up, and compared it to system uptime, you could see how
> much time you spend in idle()? I think it's possible that
> even if the cpu load is near 0%, the system may idle only for a bare
> moment (that translates to a buggy pm_idle()), and time is spent
> elsewhere (less than 80% in idle).
This makes logical sense, but how should I test this? Is there a way
to do this with existing tracers?
By the way, a revert of the bisected commit changes the cpufreq stats favorably:
2333000 31
2167000 13
2000000 6
1833000 79
1667000 239
1500000 193
1333000 959
1000000 10260
2333000 11
2167000 13
2000000 13
1833000 26
1667000 33
1500000 333
1333000 59
1000000 11293
- Steven
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-10-06 11:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-10-05 16:32 Steven Noonan
2009-10-06 7:31 ` Eero Nurkkala
2009-10-06 10:22 ` Steven Noonan
2009-10-06 10:43 ` Eero Nurkkala
2009-10-06 11:22 ` Steven Noonan [this message]
2009-10-06 12:36 ` Eero Nurkkala
2009-10-07 0:54 ` Steven Noonan
2009-10-07 1:22 ` Steven Noonan
2009-10-07 5:27 ` Eero Nurkkala
2009-10-07 7:30 ` Steven Noonan
2009-10-07 7:49 ` Eero Nurkkala
2009-10-07 8:05 ` Steven Noonan
2009-10-07 8:11 ` Steven Noonan
2009-10-07 8:14 ` Eero Nurkkala
2009-10-07 8:24 ` Steven Noonan
2009-10-07 8:43 ` Eero Nurkkala
2009-10-07 8:52 ` Steven Noonan
2009-10-07 9:31 ` Eero Nurkkala
2009-10-07 10:42 ` Thomas Gleixner
2009-10-07 11:03 ` Steven Noonan
2009-10-07 11:15 ` Thomas Gleixner
2009-10-07 11:06 ` [tip:timers/urgent] NOHZ: update idle state also when NOHZ is inactive tip-bot for Eero Nurkkala
2009-10-07 13:35 ` Rik van Riel
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=f488382f0910060422t420ade8bvdefbf3e3d0720266@mail.gmail.com \
--to=steven@uplinklabs.net \
--cc=ext-eero.nurkkala@nokia.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com \
/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®