From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1754723Ab0ETLf4 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 20 May 2010 07:35:56 -0400
Received: from crca.org.au ([74.207.252.120]:47704 "EHLO crca.org.au"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1752662Ab0ETLfz (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 20 May 2010 07:35:55 -0400
X-Bogosity: Ham, spamicity=0.000000
Message-ID: <4BF51E93.4030601@crca.org.au>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 21:35:47 +1000
From: Nigel Cunningham <ncunningham@crca.org.au>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100423 Thunderbird/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Dominik Brodowski <linux@dominikbrodowski.net>,
       Nigel Cunningham <nigel@tuxonice.net>,
       Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com>,
       Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
       Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
       Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.jf.intel.com>,
       Venkatesh Pallipadi <venki@google.com>,
       Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, ego@in.ibm.com,
       LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 0/7] sched: change nohz idle load balancing logic to	push
 model
References: <20100517182726.089700767@sbs-t61.sc.intel.com> <4BF517FE.1000103@tuxonice.net> <20100520111753.GA2264@isilmar-3.linta.de>
In-Reply-To: <20100520111753.GA2264@isilmar-3.linta.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

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