Re: [PATCH] limit CPU time spent in kipmid
From: Corey Minyard
Date: Thu Mar 19 2009 - 17:31:44 EST
Martin, thanks for the patch. I had actually implemented something like
this before, and it didn't really help very much with the hardware I
had, so I had abandoned this method. There's even a comment about it in
si_sm_result smi_event_handler(). Maybe making it tunable is better, I
don't know. But I'm afraid this will kill performance on a lot of systems.
Did you test throughput on this? The main problem people had without
kipmid was that things like firmware upgrades took a *long* time; adding
kipmid improved speeds by an order of magnitude or more.
It's my opinion that if you want this interface to work efficiently with
good performance, you should design the hardware to be used efficiently
by using interrupts (which are supported and disable kipmid). With the
way the hardware is defined, you cannot have both good performance and
low CPU usage without interrupts.
It may be possible to add an option to choose between performance and
efficiency, but it will have to default to performance.
-corey
Martin Wilck wrote:
Hello Corey, hi everyone,
here is a patch that limits the CPU time spent in kipmid. I know that
it was previously stated that current kipmid "works as designed" (e.g.
http://lists.us.dell.com/pipermail/linux-poweredge/2008-October/037636.html),
yet users are irritated by the high amount of CPU time kipmid may use
up on current servers with many sensors, even though it is "nice" CPU
time. Moreover, kipmid busy-waiting for the KCS interface to become
ready also prevents CPUs from sleeping.
The attached patch was developed and tested on an enterprise
distribution kernel where it caused the CPU load of kipmid to drop to
essentially 0 while still delivering reliable IPMI communication.
I am looking forward for comments.
Martin
--
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/