[lkml]   [2007]   [May]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v12
On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 04:23:19PM -0700, Peter Williams wrote:
> Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
> > On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 12:43:58AM -0700, Peter Williams wrote:
> > >
> > > Further testing indicates that CONFIG_SCHED_MC is not implicated and
> > > it's CONFIG_SCHED_SMT that's causing the problem. This rules out the
> > > code in find_busiest_group() as it is common to both macros.
> > >
> > > I think this makes the scheduling domain parameter values the most
> > > likely cause of the problem. I'm not very familiar with this code so
> > > I've added those who've modified this code in the last year or
> > > so to the
> > > address of this e-mail.
> >
> > What platform is this? I remember you mentioned its a 2 cpu box. Is it
> > dual core or dual package or one with HT?
> It's a single CPU HT box i.e. 2 virtual CPUs. "cat /proc/cpuinfo"
> produces:

Peter, I tried on a similar box and couldn't reproduce this problem
with x86_64 2.6.22-rc3 kernel and using defconfig(has SCHED_SMT turned on).
I am using top and just the spinners. I don't have gkrellm running, is that
required to reproduce the issue?

I tried number of times and also in runlevels 3,5(with top running
in a xterm incase of runlevel 5).

In runlevel 5, occasionally for one refresh screen of top, I see three
spinners on one cpu and one spinner on other(with X or someother app
also on the cpu with one spinner). But it balances nicely for the
immd next refresh of the top screen.

I tried with various refresh rates of top too.. Do you see the issue
at runlevel 3 too?

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2007-05-29 22:51    [W:0.086 / U:5.628 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site