Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 8 May 2013 15:20:29 -0700 | From | "Paul E. McKenney" <> | Subject | Re: rcu_preempt running flat out on idle desktop. |
| |
On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 05:17:59PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote: > On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 02:16:35PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 04:56:33PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote: > > > On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 01:52:58PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 04:30:42PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote: > > > > > > > > PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND > > > > > 10 root 20 0 0 0 0 S 200.0 0.0 185301:36 rcu_preempt > > > > > 553 root 20 0 268m 76m 6764 S 200.0 2.6 144579:53 Xorg > > > > > 1199 root 20 0 0 0 0 S 200.0 0.0 306:17.85 kworker/1:0 > > > > > 501 root 20 0 0 0 0 S 200.0 0.0 4471:03 kworker/0:2 > > > > > 12 root 20 0 0 0 0 S 200.0 0.0 67277:16 rcuop/1 > > > > > 1237 davej 20 0 535m 15m 8484 S 200.0 0.5 3645:16 Terminal > > > > > 859 davej 20 0 117m 3036 1336 S 200.0 0.1 1986:55 htop > > > > > > > > > > There are a lot of processes allegedly using "200%" of CPU time, a handful > > > > > in the "196%" range, and then a bunch at 0. > > > > > > > > Yow!!! 185301 minutes is 128 days, which is a truly impressive amount of > > > > CPU time to accumulate in a few short hours. > > > > > > perf top doesn't show anything out of the ordinary. Just as an idle desktop > > > should behave, it's spending a bunch of time in delay_tsc. > > > > > > > This is 3.9, or Linus's current tree? I am guessing the latter, but > > > > figured I should ask. > > > > > > Yeah, the latter. (v3.9-11572-g5af43c2) > > > > Do you have CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL=y? We just might have a bug in tickless > > CPU-time accounting... > > I never saw a new config option I didn't like.
;-) ;-) ;-)
> CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL=y > CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL_ALL=y
Adding Frederic on CC...
Thanx, Paul
| |