Prev: RFC: dirty_ratio back to 40%
Next: Prevent reserving RAM in the region already reserved by BIOS
From: Nigel Cunningham on 20 May 2010 07:40
Hi.

On 20/05/10 21:17, Dominik Brodowski wrote:
> Hey,
>
> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 09:07:42PM +1000, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
>> "Load balancing tick" is still number one in my powertop list of top
>> causes of wakeups (sitting at ~60 to 80 per second as I type this, with
>> ~170 wakeups per second total). Comparing this to the numbers I posted
>> earlier, we seem to have a win.
>>
>> I do wonder, though, whether further work could still be done. If I take
>> one core offline, for example, I'm still getting load balancing ticks.
>> Intuitively, I'd expect there to be no need for them with only one core
>> available. But maybe I'm just ignorant of what's going on.
>
> Are you using HZ=1000, and is the CPU active ~ 6-8 % ? If so, is it just the
> regular timer tick while the CPU is active, and so not a real "wakeup"? (Or
> possibly double the number if both CPUs are active)

HZ is 1000, and the CPU running percentage in Powertop is low (2% when
I'm not typing).

Regards,

Nigel
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: RFC: dirty_ratio back to 40%
Next: Prevent reserving RAM in the region already reserved by BIOS