Re: Updated dynamic tick patches

[Tony Lindgren]

On Fri, Sep 02, 2005 at 11:04:32PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 04:07:22PM +0300, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > Srivatsa, could you try the dyntick-test.c on your system after booting
> > to init=/bin/sh to make the system as idle as possible?
> 
> Tony,
> 	I get this o/p when I run your test on my SMP system with
> 2.6.13-mm1 + Con's latest patches (including the most recent
> lost tick calculation patch that I posted after that).
...
> 
> Don't see any ERROR status. The negative latencies doesn't seem to sound
> good. Do you see them too? I ran your test on my RH9 based T30 and
> find several negative latencies there too.

Good, thanks for testing.

>  Test: select 3000ms time:  3.000127s latency:  0.000127s status: OK

This is when I started seeing errors. Looks like if the next event from
next_timer_interrupt() is longer than HZ and idle HZ is very low, such
as 3 - 4 HZ, something gets confused.

I'll be looking into it more a bit later on, but until the problem
is solved, we should limit MAX_SKIP_TICKS to HZ/2.

Tony
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/