Ed Sweetman wrote:
Robert Hancock wrote:
Ed Sweetman wrote:
System is idle now, previously it was doing something i couldn't
halt at the time. I'm looking at "Local timer interrupts" in the
"Loc:" section of /proc/interrupts.
Across 1 second while the system is pretty much idle, i still get
300 interrupts. My HZ variable is set to 300 in the kernel config,
so this is expected but I was under the assumption that
dynticks/tickless being compiled in would cause that to be much lower.
Am I reading the wrong section of /proc/interrupts to verify if
dynticks is working or not? Again, i see no difference in cpu temp
at all.
Try running powertop ( http://www.lesswatts.org/projects/powertop/ )
and see what it reports.
I don't think dynticks will generally save huge amounts of power on a
typical desktop machine. The big gains come from being able to stay
in deep sleep C-states (C2/C3) for longer periods of time, but most
desktop machines only enable sleep states down to C1.
I tried running powertop, it complains about not having timer
statistics, I looked throughout the kernel config for a timer stat
option, but can't find one.
I didn't have hpet compiled in, i'm not sure if this is required but a
lot of places seem to suggest hpet and high precision timer and
tickless be compiled together. I also disabled cpuidle and i'll
reboot and try that.
read too fast through the powertop error message. timer stat info is in
kernel_debug option. Which i did not compile in this latest kernel
again. Sorry.
Though, with hpet and such, i still see no measurable difference or any
sort of evidence that ticks are being skipped (comparing
/proc/interrupts across sleep 1s;)
In case it helps, this is an athlon64 x2 with apic functioning and
both cores active in 64bit mode. dmesg is below.
not related :
Some additional notes: it87 is my lm_sensor, it doesn't work in
this kernel, yet it did in 2.6.22. Perhaps enabling high precision
timers changed something in acpi land.
I enabled tcp dma offloading in this kernel, i get debugging output
related to it, error is at the last line. No corruption or
otherwise bad behavior. Transferring via cifs at 9.7MB/sec
"incoming" took about 15% of one cpu... I never bothered to check
if that is the norm but i suspect i'll be removing that feature as
it seems to not play nice with the kernel.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
