[lkml]   [2008]   [Nov]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Bootup time regression from 2.6.27 to 2.6.28-rc3+
On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 18:16:31 +0100
Frans Pop <> wrote:

> On Friday 14 November 2008, Frans Pop wrote:
> > > Find below the lineup of the timers-fixes-for-linus branch of the
> > > tip tree (the same as Arjan posted minus the irq fixes)
> >
> > Could either of you maybe give a status update on this patch set and
> > the remaining issues with it that were reported (especially the
> > high C0 reported by powertop)?
> I guess part of the answer is:
> commit ae99286b4f1be7788f2d6947c66a91dbd6351eec
> Author: Thomas Gleixner <>
> Date: Mon Nov 10 13:20:23 2008 +0100
> nohz: disable tick_nohz_kick_tick() for now
> I've just done some testing using v2.6.28-rc4-322-g58e20d8 which
> includes this patch.
> CPU usage reported by powertop is now normal again (close to 100% in
> lowest C state), but I'm still getting high counts for:
> - <kernel IPI> : Rescheduling interrupts
> Typically 3-5 on .26/.27; 15-17 on .28.

these are caused by the scheduler, not by the timer code.
(And sometimes they're caused by the scheduler on behalf of something
else even)

> - <interrupt> : extra timer interrupt
> Consistently more prominent for .28 (though not with high values)

if it's less than 5 total, don't worry about it, some of that can well
be rounding/measurement effects
(powertop has to make a few approximations around the edges of the
measurement interval because things don't always line up perfectly)

> than for .27, but way better than for .26.
> powertop questions
> ------------------
> - What's with this change from "polling" to "C0" for the 2nd C state?

that sounds like an interesting bug...

> After boot I always (both when booted on mains and on battery) get
> "polling", but after inserting or removing mains it will continue to
> show "C0" independent of any further power state changes.
> - After switching to battery the first time I get something like:
> C1 0.0ms (614891469122.
> This is reproducible. I guess a rounding error due to the change in
> the number of C states. Later updates clear this.

yeah it's annoying but it is only for one display period

> - Looks like someone could not make up his mind between comma and
> slash here: "(long term: 26.2W,/1.6h)"

that sounds easy to fix ;-)

Thanks for the bugreports; either me or Auke will take a look at these

Arjan van de Ven Intel Open Source Technology Centre
For development, discussion and tips for power savings,

 \ /
  Last update: 2008-11-15 19:07    [W:0.100 / U:3.000 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site