Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 28 May 2014 12:52:38 +0200 | From | Borislav Petkov <> | Subject | Re: balance storm |
| |
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 12:30:19PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 11:08:40AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > On Wed, 28 May 2014, Libo Chen wrote: > > > > > On 2014/5/28 9:53, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > > > On Wed, 2014-05-28 at 09:04 +0800, Libo Chen wrote: > > > > > > > >> oh yes, no tsc only hpet in my box. > > > > > > > > Making poor E5-2658 box a crippled wreck. > > > > > > yes,it is. But cpu usage will be down from 15% to 5% when binding > > > cpu, so maybe read_hpet is not the root cause. > > > > Definitely hpet _IS_ the root cause on a machine as large as this, > > simply because everything gets serialized on the hpet access. > > > > Binding stuff to cpus just makes the timing behaviour different, so > > the hpet serialization is not that prominent, but still bad enough. > > > > Talk to your HW/BIOS vendor. The kernel cannot do anything about > > defunct hardware. > > --- > Subject: x86: FW_BUG when the TSC goes funny on hardware where it really should be stable > > It happens far too often on 'consumer' grade hardware, and sometimes on > 'enterprise' too that the TSC gets marked unstable due to FW fuckage, > complain more loudly in this case. > > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Acked-by: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>
-- Regards/Gruss, Boris.
Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine. --
| |