From: Mikael Pettersson <mikpe@csd.uu.se>
To: alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, fg@mandrakesoft.com
Cc: jgarzik@mandrakesoft.com, kernel@linux-mandrake.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] 2.4.2: cure the kapm-idled taking (100-epsilon)% CPU
Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2001 03:24:52 +0100 (MET) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200103040224.DAA15179@harpo.it.uu.se> (raw)
On Sat, 3 Mar 2001 23:35:34 +0000 (GMT), Alan Cox wrote:
>> Well, from reading the source, I don't see how this can break APM... What=
>> am I
>> missing?
>
>If you've stopped kapm-idled from using cpu then you've stopped it from going
>into the bios suspend one presumes.
Maybe, maybe not.
Short story: CONFIG_APM_CPU_IDLE is broken on three machines I run,
including one laptop. It actually _prevents_ the CPU from "idling".
Long story: While working on the UP-APIC patch I was trying to figure
why I was seeing a near-perfect 100Hz NMI count on an otherwise idle
machine, while other people were seeing much lower rates. An idle
machine is supposed to "hlt" frequently, which also suspends UP-APIC
NMI generation.
As it turned out, I had CONFIG_APM_CPU_IDLE=y in my .configs. So
apm_mainloop() dutifully called APM_FUNC_IDLE whenever it felt the
machine was idle. Problem is, APM_FUNC_IDLE doesn't actually _do_
anything on these machines [maybe apm_bios_call_simple() is buggy,
maybe the BIOSen are, I don't know]. So instead apm_mainloop() was
sitting there in a tight loop calling APM_FUNC_IDLE like crazy:
my 800Mhz Coppermine was doing 1.3 million of these calls per second,
and kapm-idled was taking >95% of CPU time [sound familiar?].
After I disabled CONFIG_APM_CPU_IDLE the Coppermine is running about
15 degrees C cooler than before. kapm-idled takes almost no CPU time
since it basically just sleeps waiting for APM events. The kernel's
regular idle loop "hlt":s the box most of the time between timer irqs.
It's easy enough to check if you've got a broken CONFIG_APM_CPU_IDLE:
define a counter, increment it in apm.c:apm_do_idle(), and print
it at the end of irq.c:get_irq_list(). On an idle machine, cat
/proc/interrupts, sleep 5 seconds, and cat /proc/interrupts again.
Note the difference in the apm_do_idle() counter.
Similarly, you can also add a counter to process.c:default_idle()
to see how often the kernel "hlt":s.
/Mikael
next reply other threads:[~2001-03-04 2:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-03-04 2:24 Mikael Pettersson [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2001-03-03 23:19 [PATCH] 2.4.2: cure the kapm-idled taking (100-epsilon)% CPU time Francis Galiegue
2001-03-03 23:35 ` [PATCH] 2.4.2: cure the kapm-idled taking (100-epsilon)% CPU Alan Cox
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200103040224.DAA15179@harpo.it.uu.se \
--to=mikpe@csd.uu.se \
--cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=fg@mandrakesoft.com \
--cc=jgarzik@mandrakesoft.com \
--cc=kernel@linux-mandrake.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).