diff options
| author | Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> | 2009-02-17 06:01:30 -0800 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> | 2009-02-17 22:47:45 +0100 |
| commit | bf51935f3e988e0ed6f34b55593e5912f990750a (patch) | |
| tree | 7fc82ce1c63eef89ce9a086859d2dc0eaedde363 | |
| parent | be716615fe596ee117292dc615e95f707fb67fd1 (diff) | |
| download | linux-bf51935f3e988e0ed6f34b55593e5912f990750a.tar.gz linux-bf51935f3e988e0ed6f34b55593e5912f990750a.tar.bz2 linux-bf51935f3e988e0ed6f34b55593e5912f990750a.zip | |
x86, rcu: fix strange load average and ksoftirqd behavior
Damien Wyart reported high ksoftirqd CPU usage (20%) on an
otherwise idle system.
The function-graph trace Damien provided:
> 799.521187 | 1) <idle>-0 | | rcu_check_callbacks() {
> 799.521371 | 1) <idle>-0 | | rcu_check_callbacks() {
> 799.521555 | 1) <idle>-0 | | rcu_check_callbacks() {
> 799.521738 | 1) <idle>-0 | | rcu_check_callbacks() {
> 799.521934 | 1) <idle>-0 | | rcu_check_callbacks() {
> 799.522068 | 1) ksoftir-2324 | | rcu_check_callbacks() {
> 799.522208 | 1) <idle>-0 | | rcu_check_callbacks() {
> 799.522392 | 1) <idle>-0 | | rcu_check_callbacks() {
> 799.522575 | 1) <idle>-0 | | rcu_check_callbacks() {
> 799.522759 | 1) <idle>-0 | | rcu_check_callbacks() {
> 799.522956 | 1) <idle>-0 | | rcu_check_callbacks() {
> 799.523074 | 1) ksoftir-2324 | | rcu_check_callbacks() {
> 799.523214 | 1) <idle>-0 | | rcu_check_callbacks() {
> 799.523397 | 1) <idle>-0 | | rcu_check_callbacks() {
> 799.523579 | 1) <idle>-0 | | rcu_check_callbacks() {
> 799.523762 | 1) <idle>-0 | | rcu_check_callbacks() {
> 799.523960 | 1) <idle>-0 | | rcu_check_callbacks() {
> 799.524079 | 1) ksoftir-2324 | | rcu_check_callbacks() {
> 799.524220 | 1) <idle>-0 | | rcu_check_callbacks() {
> 799.524403 | 1) <idle>-0 | | rcu_check_callbacks() {
> 799.524587 | 1) <idle>-0 | | rcu_check_callbacks() {
> 799.524770 | 1) <idle>-0 | | rcu_check_callbacks() {
> [ . . . ]
Shows rcu_check_callbacks() being invoked way too often. It should be called
once per jiffy, and here it is called no less than 22 times in about
3.5 milliseconds, meaning one call every 160 microseconds or so.
Why do we need to call rcu_pending() and rcu_check_callbacks() from the
idle loop of 32-bit x86, especially given that no other architecture does
this?
The following patch removes the call to rcu_pending() and
rcu_check_callbacks() from the x86 32-bit idle loop in order to
reduce the softirq load on idle systems.
Reported-by: Damien Wyart <damien.wyart@free.fr>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
| -rw-r--r-- | arch/x86/kernel/process_32.c | 3 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 3 deletions
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/process_32.c b/arch/x86/kernel/process_32.c index a546f55c77b4..bd4da2af08ae 100644 --- a/arch/x86/kernel/process_32.c +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/process_32.c @@ -104,9 +104,6 @@ void cpu_idle(void) check_pgt_cache(); rmb(); - if (rcu_pending(cpu)) - rcu_check_callbacks(cpu, 0); - if (cpu_is_offline(cpu)) play_dead(); |