From: Corey Minyard <minyard@acm.org>
To: Martin Wilck <martin.wilck@fujitsu-siemens.com>
Cc: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>,
"openipmi-developer@lists.sourceforge.net"
<openipmi-developer@lists.sourceforge.net>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Openipmi-developer] Improving IPMI performance under load
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 08:08:36 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <49C8DB54.4010200@acm.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <49C8A823.6020809@fujitsu-siemens.com>
Martin Wilck wrote:
> Hi Corey,
>
> yesterday I posted some results about the IPMI performance under CPU
> load, which can be up to 25 times slower than in an idle system. I think
> it might be worthwhile to try to improve that behavior as well.
>
Yes, that would be expected, as kipmid would never be scheduled in a
busy system, and it would just be the timer driving things.
> I made a variation of my patch which introduces a second parameter
> (kipmid_min_busy) that causes kipmid not to call schedule() for a
> certain amount of time. Thus if there's IPMI traffic pending, kipmid
> will busy-loop for kipmid_min_busy seconds, then starting to schedule()
> in each loop as it does now, and finally go to sleep when
> kipmid_max_busy is reached. At the same time, I changed the nice value
> of kipmid from 19 to 0.
>
I would guess that changing the nice value is the main thing that caused
the difference. The other changes probably didn't make as big a difference.
> With this patch and e.g. min_busy=100 and max_busy=200, there is no
> noticeable difference any more between IPMI performance with and without
> CPU load.
>
> The patch + results still need cleanup, therefore I am not sending it
> right now. Just wanted to hear what you think.
>
I'm ok with tuning like this, but most users are probably not going to
want this type of behavior.
-corey
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-03-24 13:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-03-19 16:27 [PATCH] limit CPU time spent in kipmid Martin Wilck
2009-03-19 21:31 ` Corey Minyard
2009-03-19 23:51 ` Greg KH
2009-03-20 15:30 ` Corey Minyard
2009-03-20 17:47 ` Greg KH
2009-03-20 18:28 ` Corey Minyard
2009-03-23 13:17 ` [PATCH] limit CPU time spent in kipmid (PREVIOUS WAS BROKEN) Martin Wilck
2009-03-23 15:32 ` Greg KH
2009-03-23 16:20 ` Martin Wilck
2009-03-23 20:39 ` Corey Minyard
2009-03-24 9:22 ` Martin Wilck
2009-03-24 9:30 ` Improving IPMI performance under load Martin Wilck
2009-03-24 13:08 ` Corey Minyard [this message]
2009-03-24 13:21 ` [Openipmi-developer] " Martin Wilck
2009-03-24 15:50 ` Matt Domsch
2009-03-24 17:15 ` Martin Wilck
2009-04-06 13:48 ` [PATCH] limit CPU time spent in kipmid (PREVIOUS WAS BROKEN) Martin Wilck
2009-06-04 18:39 ` [PATCH] limit CPU time spent in kipmid (version 4) Martin Wilck
2009-03-23 13:25 ` [PATCH] limit CPU time spent in kipmid Martin Wilck
2009-03-19 22:41 ` [Openipmi-developer] " Bela Lubkin
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=49C8DB54.4010200@acm.org \
--to=minyard@acm.org \
--cc=greg@kroah.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin.wilck@fujitsu-siemens.com \
--cc=openipmi-developer@lists.sourceforge.net \
/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