From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Scheduler regression: Too frequent timer interrupts(?)
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 16:16:16 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1239977776.23397.4590.camel@laptop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0904170941020.11877@qirst.com>
On Fri, 2009-04-17 at 09:42 -0400, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Apr 2009, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > This has never been true afaikt, as long as we have a task running, we
> > take the interrupt, I just looked at the .22 code and that certainly
> > expects the scheduler_tick() to be called when there is a running
> > process.
> >
> > Also, look at /proc/interrupts if you want to determine interrupt
> > frequency.
>
> I am mainly interested in limited the number and length of cpu holdoffs.
>
> If the timer interrupt is always taken then it must take less than 1 usec
> in certain versions of the kernel in order to not show up in the
> statistics gathered.
Such a test as you had is pretty useless for anything.
If you want to measure something I'd suggest making a histogram of tsc
values in 10ns buckets or something, and seeing if there are a few
predominant spikes above the noise.
With something like that you could say, the jiffy tick went from 0.8+-.1
to 1.1+-.1 us or somesuch.
After that, you could possibly use oprofile or readprofile or
perf-counters to get an idea where the time is spend. I did a quick
profile on one of my machines, and about half the kernel time spend in a
while(1) loop comes from __do_softirq().
Really, I should not have to tell you this...
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-04-17 14:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-04-16 19:53 Scheduler regression: Too frequent timer interrupts(?) Christoph Lameter
2009-04-17 7:00 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-04-17 13:42 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-04-17 14:16 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2009-04-17 14:29 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-04-17 14:51 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-04-17 15:04 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-04-17 15:28 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-04-23 4:42 ` Pavel Machek
2009-04-28 21:02 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-04-28 21:23 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-04-28 21:21 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-04-17 15:35 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-17 15:55 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-04-17 16:23 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-04-17 16:33 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-04-17 16:49 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-17 17:19 ` Chris Friesen
2009-04-17 17:45 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-04-17 18:11 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-04-17 18:20 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-04-17 18:58 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-04-17 20:34 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-04-17 20:53 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-04-17 23:24 ` Chris Friesen
2009-04-18 7:35 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-18 7:59 ` Andi Kleen
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=1239977776.23397.4590.camel@laptop \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=cl@linux.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
/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