Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 23 Apr 2012 18:20:17 +0200 | From | Lesław Kopeć <> | Subject | Re: Inconsistent load average on tickless kernels |
| |
On 04/17/2012 05:30 PM, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>> Looking at results for 2.6.32.55 branch it seems that we're back at >> 74f5187ac8 patch - the values are almost the same. The difference >> between NO_HZ and HZ versions is noticeable. > > How does 3.0.y + c308b56b53 do? (I ask because the usual flow of > fixes is mainline -> 3.3.y -> 3.2.y -> 3.0.y -> 2.6.32.y with the > first three steps happening pretty quickly, so it we can get this > working on 3.0.y then that would be progress. Also because, like > 2.6.32.y, 3.0.y is longterm maintained, so it might be useful in the > meantime.)
It seems that load reported by 3.0.28 with and without c308b56b53 patch is almost identical to 3.2.12. This might be more clearly visible on a comparison chart. [1]
2.6.32.55-hz-0f004f5a69 9.88 2.6.32.55-no-hz-74f5187ac8 2.48 2.6.32.55-no-hz-c308b56b53 2.22 3.0.28-hz 10.66 3.0.28-no-hz 0.60 3.0.28-no-hz-c308b56b53 4.09 3.0.28-no-hz-c308b56b53 nohz=off 6.78 3.2.12-hz 10.16 3.2.12-no-hz 0.66 3.2.12-no-hz-c308b56b53 4.36
What's worth noting is that I haven't seen any nasty side effects of the latest patch on all kernel versions that I've tested. Hope that helps.
[1] http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/2204/kernelload.png
-- Lesław Kopeć
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |