lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Jan]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Request for assistance - excessive kworker CPU wakeups
Mandeep Singh Baines wrote:
> David H. Durgee (dhdurgee@verizon.net) wrote:
>> Mandeep Singh Baines wrote:
>>> On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 1:27 PM, David H. Durgee<dhdurgee@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>> I recently purchased a Lenovo IdeaPad Z560, model 09143YU, and as I am not a
>>>> Windows fan I installed Linux Mint 11 Katya x64 to use instead of the
>>>> supplied W7. I was encountering a known hang and had to upgrade to a later
>>>> kernel, so I am now using the 2.6.38-11-generic #50-Ubuntu SMP Mon Sep 12
>>>> 21:17:25 UTC 2011 x86_64 kernel.
>>>>
>>>> I had my first occasion to use the laptop for an extended period for the
>>>> first time over the Thanksgiving holiday and I found it needed to be tuned.
>>>> I downloaded powertop and used it to discover where my problems were.
>>>> After addressing excessive i915 interrupts due to DRI the next most
>>>> frequent cause of CPU wakeups is a kworker on the system. A search lead to
>>>> a post by Tejun, indicating the need to trace such issues. Running the trace
>>>> showed that 1933 of 2748 events were of the form:
>>>>
>>>> <idle>-0 [000] 22005.355346: workqueue_queue_work: work
>>>> struct=ffff8800bb411188 function=do_dbs_timer workqueue=ffff88012b5d2c00
>>>> req_cpu=0 cpu=0
>>>>
>>>> Tejun indicated that this is a workitem used by cpufreq and likely caused by
>>>> something else hitting the CPU frequently. So how do I diagnose this
>>>> further and isolate the cause for correction?
>>>>
>>>> If you would like a summary of this, download this spreadsheet:
>>>>
>>>> http://home.comcast.net/%7Eddurgee/Tracelog.ods
>>>>
>>>> If you would like to inspect the trace log itself:
>>>>
>>>> http://home.comcast.net/%7Eddurgee/tracelog.zip
>>>>
>>> Hi Dave,
>>>
>>> I don't know the cpufreq code that well, but it seem that this
>>> workqueue is schedule periodically. You
>>> can examine the sampling rate via /sys:
>>>
>>> $ grep "" /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpufreq/ondemand/sampling_rate*
>>>
>>> Just curious, are you running nohz:
>>>
>>> $ dmesg | grep -i nohz
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Mandeep
>> dhdurgee@DHD-Z560 ~/Downloads $ grep ""
>> /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpufreq/ondemand/sampling_rate*
>> /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpufreq/ondemand/sampling_rate:10000
>> /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpufreq/ondemand/sampling_rate_max:4294967295
>> /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpufreq/ondemand/sampling_rate_min:10000
>> dhdurgee@DHD-Z560 ~/Downloads $ dmesg | grep -i nohz
>> dhdurgee@DHD-Z560 ~/Downloads $
>>
>> Does this explain what I am seeing? Does this square with the
>> observations in my spreadsheet? Does this suggest a means of
>> reducing these excessive wakeups? Is there more information I can
>> provide to suggest a course of action?
>>
> IIUC, you should be seeing 100 such events per second * number of CPUs.
> Is that what you are seeing? You could reduce this by changing HZ. Maybe
> change to CONFIG_HZ_100 in your .config from CONFIG_HZ_1000. That
> should reduce the number of events by a factor of 10.
>
> Regards,
> Mandeep
Looking at /boot/config-2.6.38-11-generic I see the following:

CONFIG_HZ_100=y
# CONFIG_HZ_250 is not set
# CONFIG_HZ_300 is not set
# CONFIG_HZ_1000 is not set
CONFIG_HZ=100

So it appears that this is already set. Looking at the raw data I
collected and summarized I see 22005.355346 in the first record and
22031.110816 in the last record. Am I correct in interpreting this to
mean that 25.76 seconds elapsed while data was collected? During the
collection I saw 1,993 total idle do_dbs_timer calls. I saw a total of
2,754 wakeups for all events. You can get the details from the files I
referenced.

Dave


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-01-26 02:35    [W:0.039 / U:10.804 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site