From: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
Cc: RT <linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Subject: Re: [patch] clockevents: Reinstate the per cpu tick skew
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 08:22:30 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1325143350.4819.13.camel@marge.simson.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4EFB1B28.7090203@linux.intel.com>
On Wed, 2011-12-28 at 14:35 +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 12/28/2011 6:17 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Tue, 2011-12-27 at 10:20 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> >> Quoting removal commit af5ab277ded04bd9bc6b048c5a2f0e7d70ef0867
> >> Historically, Linux has tried to make the regular timer tick on
> >> the various CPUs not happen at the same time, to avoid contention
> >> on xtime_lock.
> >>
> >> Nowadays, with the tickless kernel, this contention no longer
> >> happens since time keeping and updating are done differently. In
> >> addition, this skew is actually hurting power consumption in a
> >> measurable way on many-core systems. End quote
> >
> > Hm, nohz enabled, hogs burning up 60 of 64 cores.
> >
> > 56.11% [kernel] [k] ktime_get 5.54% [kernel] [k]
> > scheduler_tick 4.02% [kernel] [k] cpuacct_charge 3.78%
> > [kernel] [k] __rcu_pending 3.76% [kernel] [k]
> > tick_sched_timer 3.42% [kernel] [k] native_write_msr_safe
> > 1.58% [kernel] [k] run_timer_softirq 1.28% [kernel] [k]
> > __schedule 1.21% [kernel] [k] apic_timer_interrupt 1.07%
> > [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_lock 0.81% [kernel] [k]
> > __switch_to 0.67% [kernel] [k] thread_return
> >
> > Maybe skew-me wants to become a boot option?
>
> this is 56% of kernel time.. of how much total time?
To answer the question..
99.57% burn [.] main
0.14% [kernel] [k] ktime_get
That's the DL980 running a 250Hz kernel. Dinky, but for my picky RT
load, too much nonetheless. (hm, what would SGI monster box say?)
-Mike
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-12-29 7:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-12-24 9:06 3.0.14-rt31 + 64 cores = very bad jitter == highly synchronized tick? Mike Galbraith
2011-12-25 7:31 ` Mike Galbraith
2011-12-26 8:04 ` Mike Galbraith
2011-12-27 6:40 ` Mike Galbraith
2011-12-27 9:20 ` [patch] clockevents: Reinstate the per cpu tick skew Mike Galbraith
2011-12-28 5:17 ` Mike Galbraith
2011-12-28 8:22 ` Mike Galbraith
2011-12-28 9:59 ` Mike Galbraith
2011-12-28 13:35 ` Arjan van de Ven
2011-12-28 14:59 ` Mike Galbraith
2011-12-28 16:57 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-12-28 17:28 ` Mike Galbraith
2011-12-29 7:22 ` Mike Galbraith [this message]
2011-12-28 13:32 ` Arjan van de Ven
2011-12-28 15:10 ` Mike Galbraith
2012-01-03 6:20 ` Mike Galbraith
2012-04-23 6:13 ` irq latency regression post af5ab277 - was " Mike Galbraith
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=1325143350.4819.13.camel@marge.simson.net \
--to=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=arjan@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).