From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754201Ab0JCRS1 (ORCPT ); Sun, 3 Oct 2010 13:18:27 -0400 Received: from mail-qy0-f181.google.com ([209.85.216.181]:58043 "EHLO mail-qy0-f181.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754030Ab0JCRS0 (ORCPT ); Sun, 3 Oct 2010 13:18:26 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=BE88WH5TXn11jLzvbZwC9EW00XlPcro6mMrjVhci6Pq9YqOce5qUk3snMGXIdjJfng FzgPhSaDHoJdsxrmxGxFGnxLKM3TsR0D2FkWiVRQZGmUsRShWOb91Z02xcp5FAYKvJIU tCrItLk6xRhDDlRivEM9xf+x/BTmkMbBQ816s= Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2010 13:18:23 -0400 From: tmhikaru@gmail.com To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Greg KH , Chase Douglas , Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: PROBLEM: Unusually high load average when idle in 2.6.35, 2.6.35.1 and later Message-ID: <20101003171823.GA19129@roll> References: <20101001035321.GA2360@roll> <20101001094814.GA5029@roll> <20101003030254.GA4901@roll> <1286095268.2144.119.camel@laptop> <20101003121209.586f7b6b@schatten.dmk.lab> <1286107478.2144.177.camel@laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="2oS5YaxWCcQjTEyO" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1286107478.2144.177.camel@laptop> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --2oS5YaxWCcQjTEyO Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline I screwed up and sent this incorrectly to only Peter originally, resent to everyone else too. On Sun, Oct 03, 2010 at 02:04:38PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Sun, 2010-10-03 at 12:12 +0200, Florian Mickler wrote: > > On Sun, 03 Oct 2010 10:41:08 +0200 > > Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > > On Sat, 2010-10-02 at 23:02 -0400, tmhikaru@gmail.com wrote: > > > > The load average statistic is indeed broken somehow, and I > > > > did bisect it down to where the problem began, however there seems > > > > to be no > > > > performance problem related to it I can find. > > > > > > Chase, anything you can see broken with this stuff? > > > > Peter, do you think it would be worthwile to test a kernel with the > > low load-averages in NOHZ=disable mode? The bisected commit claims to > > fix a NOHZ issue with the load average. So if the new figures are the > > correct ones, they should be somehow similar to the figures before > > with NOHZ? Or am I on the wrong track here? > > No, that makes sense, but there is of course the distinct possibility > that the patch wrecked the !nohz path as well. So ideally you'd have to > compare NOHZ=n with this patch reverted and NOHZ=y with this patch in > place. > That'd be easy for me to do if you want. given I use CONFIG_NO_HZ=y in my kernel .config, that's tested the 'patch already in place' path right? I'll try setting up a kernel build with CONFIG_NO_HZ=n if that's what you want me to test. I unfortunately am not entirely sure if that's what I need to alter though, so please get back to me and let me know so I can test it. Tim McGrath --2oS5YaxWCcQjTEyO Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iQEVAwUBTKi635EncCrqzVruAQLS2wf/UDZ1s3XzMz2O1GfeqiM5YJgviPRTR/ja goyWqzsLcM3xoyIMKUZo6/ISdWBcTzG3XXsQfA7v8BekqQAZGnEHDM3+cSVyiQk9 z03ObDtRmFza1mNpYVH44sH1jV8qUdY8FMxEHStokCM/B2ca28y+E1LwW4PnFWmA d2qbUzPbDmWLHvix8o2TOPYrR2dLyDnobClXAq2HdE6dN6q69VQmElCr1RurO49f dJM5hU68M+/0viEsTINZfaC5dlrYleuEvaInIum7a8rr2a7FwFimbdT7boWmf8c5 TxkDOk5gxLPj6pexocOQ/QGk6189G1HN4jZpRcZa4hdZUxVAJkyelQ== =MPdN -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --2oS5YaxWCcQjTEyO--