From: Hamie <hamish@travellingkiwi.com>
To: Russell King <rmk+lkml@arm.linux.org.uk>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: ide-cs using 100% CPU
Date: Sat, 07 Aug 2004 18:55:43 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4115179F.6060609@travellingkiwi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040806203849.I13948@flint.arm.linux.org.uk>
Russell King wrote:
>On Fri, Aug 06, 2004 at 08:33:52PM +0100, Hamie wrote:
>
>
>>Russell King wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>On Sun, Jul 18, 2004 at 10:30:16AM +0100, Hamie wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Anyone know why this happens? Something busy waiting? (BUt that should
>>>>show as system cpu right?) or something taking out really long locks?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>It'll be because IDE is using PIO to access the CF card, which could
>>>have long access times (so reading a block of sectors could take some
>>>time _and_ use CPU.) Obviously, PIO requires the use of the CPU, so
>>>the CPU can't be handed off to some other task while this is occuring.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Well... I did consider that. And not to disbelieve you, since you know
>>the kernel way better than I do, But decided I was being silly that a
>>1.6GHz Pentium-M processor should use 100% CPU moving a couple of
>>MB/second across a CF interface...
>>
>>Is 100% CPU not excessive? IIRC my PIII-750 used to use less CPU doing
>>the same job as quick, or even slightly faster...
>>
>>And should it not use system CPU rather than user CPU?
>>
>>
>
>Actually, if its being accounted for as waitIO, then we should be
>running some other task... However, I've just realised that we
>don't appear to specifically account IO waits in the kernel, so
>I'm not sure how userspace comes up with this magic number.
>
>Sorry for the noise...
>
>
>
Hey... Make all the noise you like. If I knew the internals a bit more
nowadays, I'd find it determine why it looks like userCPU myself.
Why doesn't the kernel account for waitIO? Design decision? or just not
yet implemented? Or not wanted (Not sure why it'd be the third or first
:). Bug?
H
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-08-07 17:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-07-18 9:30 ide-cs using 100% CPU Hamie
2004-08-06 19:27 ` Russell King
2004-08-06 19:33 ` Hamie
2004-08-06 19:38 ` Russell King
2004-08-07 17:55 ` Hamie [this message]
2004-08-07 22:26 ` Alan Cox
2004-08-08 9:03 ` Hamie
2004-08-08 15:24 ` Alan Cox
2004-08-09 9:57 ` Paulo Marques
2004-08-09 12:32 ` P
2004-08-09 20:11 ` Bill Davidsen
[not found] <fa.j0leddb.okcbor@ifi.uio.no>
[not found] ` <fa.goasld9.1q1kb05@ifi.uio.no>
2004-08-07 19:21 ` Robert Hancock
2004-08-08 15:24 ` Hamie
[not found] <fa.hhjr2f2.1ql2t80@ifi.uio.no>
[not found] ` <fa.ggacpdl.26on0d@ifi.uio.no>
2004-08-08 19:32 ` Robert Hancock
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=4115179F.6060609@travellingkiwi.com \
--to=hamish@travellingkiwi.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rmk+lkml@arm.linux.org.uk \
/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