From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Taz Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2015 13:13:07 +0000 Subject: Re: [lm-sensors] Fancontrol memory consumption Message-Id: <54F1BEE3.2010009@gmail.com> List-Id: References: <20141105175729.39a88ab1@endymion.delvare> In-Reply-To: <20141105175729.39a88ab1@endymion.delvare> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: lm-sensors@vger.kernel.org I had to revert to first patch set : new patch consumes 30% CPU on my system (or 6% global CPU on Atom D510@1.66GHz). I let it ran a few minutes from 13h56 to 14h00, then when seeing=20 abnormal CPU consumption, I reverted it. Taz (C=E9dric L.M.) Le 28/02/2015 13:39, Taz a =E9crit : > Hi Jean, > > Besides it looked strange, it didn't bother me enough so I stopped=20 > monitoring and kind of gave it up too... > But I'll certainly give the new patch a try (and restart monitoring),=20 > and give you feedback of course. > > Thanks a lot ! > > Taz (C=E9dric L.M.) > > > Le 28/02/2015 11:14, Jean Delvare a =E9crit : >> Hi Taz, >> >> On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 15:36:32 +0100, Taz wrote: >>> (sorry I just saw my reply still was in my drafts, don't know why...) >>> >>> Indeed : my current bash version is 4.3.11 >>> Although I don't have line 585 in my fancontrol script >>> I can apply the the patch (lines 497 & 536 for fancontrol v0.7) >> The "patch" command can apply patch files with offsets just fine. >> >>> I also gave it a try without the wait lines and not sending to >>> background the previous >>> sleep command the wait was waiting for anyway (useless ?) >> Not sending sleep in the background reportedly caused delays or >> undesirable behavior on system suspend or shutdown on some systems. See: >> http://www.lm-sensors.org/changeset/4443/lm-sensors/branches/lm-sensors-= 3.0.0/prog/pwm/fancontrol=20 >> >> >>> =3D> Mem consumption seems to be the same in all cases, we'll see in the >>> long run... >> I discussed the issue with the upstream bash maintainer, but he claims >> that the implementation is correct and required for Posix compliance. >> My own tests were confusing (sometimes I could reproduce the issue, >> sometimes not) so I couldn't reach a definitive conclusion, and >> ultimately I forgot about it / gave up on it. >> >> Meanwhile someone contributed a trick to the healthd script which may >> work just fine here too. It avoids both the call to an external command >> and the use of wait. Can you please revert the previous patch and give >> a try to this one instead? >> >> --- >> prog/pwm/fancontrol | 6 ++---- >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >> >> --- lm-sensors.orig/prog/pwm/fancontrol 2014-11-17=20 >> 09:16:14.657054963 +0100 >> +++ lm-sensors/prog/pwm/fancontrol 2015-02-28 11:03:32.958562604=20 >> +0100 >> @@ -545,8 +545,7 @@ function UpdateFanSpeeds >> then # if fan was stopped start it using a safe value >> echo $minsa > $pwmo >> # Sleep while still handling signals >> - sleep 1 & >> - wait $! >> + read -t 1 -N 0 >> fi >> fi >> echo $pwmval > $pwmo # write new value to pwm output >> @@ -584,6 +583,5 @@ while true >> do >> UpdateFanSpeeds >> # Sleep while still handling signals >> - sleep $INTERVAL & >> - wait $! >> + read -t $INTERVAL -N 0 >> done >> >> Thanks, > _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors