[lkml]   [2006]   [Nov]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: CONFIG_NO_HZ: missed ticks, stall (keyb IRQ required) [2.6.18-rc4-mm1]

    On Tue, Nov 07, 2006 at 01:41:16AM -0500, Len Brown wrote:
    > On Monday 06 November 2006 15:58, Andreas Mohr wrote:
    > > > > How useful would it be to simply disable C2 operation (but not C1)
    > > > > in CONFIG_NO_HZ mode after's been determined to kill APIC timer?:
    > If the goal is saving power, then disabling dynticks will likely
    > be more attractive than disabling C2. Perhaps you can measure it?
    > eg. simply run "bltk -I" to measure idle battery life (

    Surely the CMOS battery?? Seriously, no battery here anywhere ;)

    Anyway, I was already afraid that I didn't have any of my *two* different
    power measurement devices here, but then I found one in the drawer
    (Conrad EKM 265, to be precise).

    The results are (waited for values to settle down each time):

    -dyntick4, C1, CONFIG_NO_HZ:
    83.9W KDE idle, 95.2W bash while 1
    -dyntick4, C2 (C1-only hack disabled, kernel rebuilt), CONFIG_NO_HZ off:
    84.4W KDE idle, 95.4W bash while 1
    -dyntick4, acpi=off (i.e. APM active), -dynticks:
    85.5W KDE idle, 95.5W bash while 1

    Bet you didn't see this coming...

    Again, this is Athlon 1200 *desktop*, with some EPOX VIA motherboard
    ("8K5A3+" ??).

    Note that even with dynticks disabled did I have a pause on boot where I had
    to fiddle with the keyboard once to continue booting, IOW our APIC timer
    probing disrupts normal interrupt processing due to C2 -> C3 AMD BIOS bug.
    We might want to fix probing to not require manual generation of the next
    interrupt event due to APIC timer temporarily being "dead".

    > But this is even more true when talking about C3 -- it certainly saves more
    > power than dynticks does. This is true for the example system here:
    > So given that C3 on every known system that has shipped to date
    > breaks the LAPIC timer (and apparently this applies to C2 on these AMD boxes),
    > dynticks needs a solid story for co-existing with C3.

    Indeed, we need a good and flexible fallback mechanism.
    However I would slightly slant dynticks towards being active even in cases
    where it actually happens to consume *slightly* more power due to C2 disabled,
    since it *seems* that CPU load is lower with dynticks
    (less timer background load) / desktop timing is slightly more precise.
    And we all want fast desktops that are waaaaay better than XP, right?

    Andreas Mohr
    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: 2006-11-07 09:21    [W:0.021 / U:23.024 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site