On 10/23/07, Jeff Dike <email@example.com> wrote:
On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 04:21:03PM -0300, Hrishikesh wrote:
>> Yes, that double negative was a slipup. I did get some numbers out and they
>> look pretty good. I ran upto 5 instances of UML simultaneously and in the
>> tickful case, each instance adds roughly about 100 wakeups per second.
> HZ == 100, so that makes sense.
>> after 5 instances, C3 residency comes down to about 95% when all the
>> instances are simply idling. With NO_HZ applied, the change is minimal with
>> C3 residency still approximately 98%. UML is not even among the top three of
>> the bad-list of wakers-up :-)
> Cool. I'm suprised that 500 wakeups/sec only brings you down < 5%.
Hmm, powertop shows 500 wakeups on part of UML, but the actual number of wakeups for the processor is much lesser.. Guess there is some batching that is happening.
> So, things are good, except I need to figure out the !NO_HZ busy loop.
> Work email - jdike at linux dot intel dot com