From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756658Ab0JUBst (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Oct 2010 21:48:49 -0400 Received: from mail-qw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.216.46]:62616 "EHLO mail-qw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753002Ab0JUBss (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Oct 2010 21:48:48 -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=eEiF4RD5ltjy66qQ3fF7UtSpLrlAOpwOwCzRhRtcqlbm/q70p19VYp0QS357GbhCFI AP5Qj3Q3rYorVekDmaw7EiH66dncnzoRdvsA3V0CiFLRvJYpOQ8CkFelGkqCT/39tOsB aphQapvdBmKCwtY6uHhZP3/yNI01SzooaIf4o= Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 21:48:43 -0400 From: tmhikaru@gmail.com To: Peter Zijlstra , Damien Wyart , Chase Douglas , Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Venkatesh Pallipadi Subject: Re: High CPU load when machine is idle (related to PROBLEM: Unusually high load average when idle in 2.6.35, 2.6.35.1 and later) Message-ID: <20101021014843.GA21295@roll> References: <20100929070153.GA2200@brouette> <20101014145813.GA2185@brouette> <20101020132732.GA30024@brouette> <1287581440.3488.16.camel@twins> <1287582208.3488.20.camel@twins> <1287584073.3488.22.camel@twins> <1287595605.3488.52.camel@twins> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="FCuugMFkClbJLl1L" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1287595605.3488.52.camel@twins> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --FCuugMFkClbJLl1L Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 07:26:45PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >=20 >=20 > OK, how does this work for people? I find my idle load is still a tad > high, but maybe I'm not patient enough. I haven't had a chance to keep up with the topic, and I apologize. I'll be testing this as soon as I can finish compiling it. Thank you all for not letting this go unfixed. Tim McGrath --FCuugMFkClbJLl1L Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iQEVAwUBTL+b+5EncCrqzVruAQIb8Qf+LAwxg3R8yezfe3bNvXUYIIcqgi0KjGN1 RCZw2vMo8BONvF4xk2qFf0vx6gxxv0e0T4sqMIoGcP9OALBZtbXRxXHlx/R1lIgp IWML7YxCg4XicYJP6la7URSE4EXf4mPDswMSo0Uvxkdek4989eU32WDCv7oZdA9h 5uFedPfFuM+O5gcEoYWIVKlrVSPZJimVVbB+9YEX+cyxr1tPQ8Owy74ikRGWBFBf Dng1UTSVbeYA6IzVDmqfIZFjdRgzKQMLKxJwJMjfL69OcULL9eYvYd5ldJsgaA0z 42XXcVwYBunjdOsPLwnTqEQNVbsd26M2HAeb9bOEjVcNp42kw70fcA== =liag -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --FCuugMFkClbJLl1L--