lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Sep]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/3] mm: page allocator: Drain per-cpu lists after direct reclaim allocation fails
On Sat, Sep 04, 2010 at 05:58:40PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 08:21:01PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 12:25:45 +1000 Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Still, given the improvements in performance from this patchset,
> > > I'd say inclusion is a no-braniner....
> >
> > OK, thanks.
> >
> > It'd be interesting to check the IPI frequency with and without -
> > /proc/interrupts "CAL" field. Presumably it went down a lot.
>
> Maybe I suspected you would ask for this. I happened to dump
> /proc/interrupts after the livelock run finished, so you're in
> luck :)
....
>
> livelock: 59458 58367 58559 59493 59614 57970 59060 58207
>
> So the livelock case tends to indicate roughly 40,000 more IPI
> interrupts per CPU occurred. The livelock occurred for close to 5
> minutes, so that's roughly 130 IPIs per second per CPU....

And just to confuse the issue further, I just had a livelock on a
vanilla kernel that did *not* cause the CAL counts to increase.
Hence it appears that the IPI storms are not the cause of the
livelocks І'm triggering....

Cheers,

Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-09-04 10:19    [W:0.062 / U:0.520 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site