From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG  Sun Apr 29 12:04:52 2012
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0CD7106566B;
	Sun, 29 Apr 2012 12:04:52 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from oliver.pntr@gmail.com)
Received: from mail-gy0-f182.google.com (mail-gy0-f182.google.com
	[209.85.160.182])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40C968FC17;
	Sun, 29 Apr 2012 12:04:52 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by ghrr20 with SMTP id r20so1222781ghr.13
	for <multiple recipients>; Sun, 29 Apr 2012 05:04:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
	h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
	:cc:content-type;
	bh=Jb3q5vqoNMqeMlt48c8X2eEkMI9mws9lhRBMwLAtPu0=;
	b=FphnBktPeelb1j/bTUco6y2QL7Txx0vi0IDD7ONmHQ0plWHxno1lPVZKWllMxUDb5n
	Y16povFPuq7BPZoXaOwSVQvHEdDYwf8aM15oj/Lf+vPLJpc/E8pZvYP9DB+qtdpHZlJy
	nD3bgeN0Tr/qyIET/Ett8oSpYYWfiroO6B5+/X7sRwFPs3o1NrsyhsVN4LZoMp37lMQ4
	+hYWmRnTW8O3cVi4NN+6c0FA/8XuW6d7mPNoT0ki0ffx/iBS93M21ZJ37o9XC7nZYiwe
	dZcNvo0ybTRxnjfUAtP2hq8ht2Ff5XbPU/rhZyQo5nUPh8nMr3U5iwSeplSAJvoez/J6
	57rg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.236.145.34 with SMTP id o22mr19277521yhj.7.1335701091542; Sun,
	29 Apr 2012 05:04:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.236.161.97 with HTTP; Sun, 29 Apr 2012 05:04:51 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4F9CDE91.1060300@FreeBSD.org>
References: <20120427203013.GB60961@pcjas.obspm.fr>
	<CAPjTQNFsHZQLp8oMwhjkAWLnYZ5mPv9kr9=X5GhqHqExoHM0yw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20120427213459.GA61125@pcjas.obspm.fr>
	<4F9B946D.3030607@FreeBSD.org>
	<CAPjTQNGts290DyjORNfir8_rZ5S_vdog+JMEBA9mc2vJhUa=jg@mail.gmail.com>
	<4F9CCEF2.6050609@FreeBSD.org>
	<20120429155512.M91148@sola.nimnet.asn.au>
	<4F9CDE91.1060300@FreeBSD.org>
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2012 14:04:51 +0200
Message-ID: <CAPjTQNF=0Hgq_7BxeK_8o6DRQ+UJ_r94Y3PqwF8f_ccDeA_hHQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Oliver Pinter <oliver.pntr@gmail.com>
To: Alexander Motin <mav@freebsd.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: Davide Italiano <davide@freebsd.org>, Albert Shih <Albert.Shih@obspm.fr>,
	Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@iet.unipi.it>, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org,
	Ian Smith <smithi@nimnet.asn.au>
Subject: Re: High load event idl.
X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code <freebsd-stable.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>,
	<mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2012 12:04:52 -0000

Hi all!

Removing dummynet from kernel don't chanage anything, that is releated
to load average. The loadavg hold to 0.70 +/- 0.2. (single user : sh +
top)

On 4/29/12, Alexander Motin <mav@freebsd.org> wrote:
> On 04/29/12 09:09, Ian Smith wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 08:17:38 +0300, Alexander Motin wrote:
>>   >  On 04/29/12 01:53, Oliver Pinter wrote:
>>   >  >  Attached the ktr file. This is on core2duo P9400 cpu (
>>   >  >  smbios.system.product="HP ProBook 5310m (WD792EA#ABU)" ). The
>> workload
>>   >  >  is only a single user boost: sh + top running, but the load
>> average is
>>   >  >  near 0.5.
>>   >
>>   >  ktr shows no real load there. But it shows that you are using
>> dummynet, that
>>   >  schedules its runs on every hardclock tick. I believe that load you
>> see is
>>   >  the result or synchronization between dummynet calls and loadvg
>> sampling,
>>   >  both of which called from hardclock. I think removing dummynet from
>> equation,
>>   >  should hide this problem and also reduce you laptops power
>> consumption.
>>   >
>>   >  What's about fixing this, it is loadavg sampling algorithm that
>> should be
>>   >  changed. Fixing dummynet to not run on every hardclock tick would
>> also be
>>   >  great.
>>
>> Wading in out of my depth, and copying Luigi in case he misses it .. but
>> even back in the olden days when HZ defaulted to 100, one was advised to
>> use HZ>= 1000 for smooth dummynet traffic shaping dispatch scheduling.
>>
>> I wonder, with the newer clocks and timers, whether there is another
>> clock that could be used for dummynet scheduling, that would not have
>> this effect (even if largely cosmetic?) on load average calculation?
>
> First of all, the easiest solution would be to make dummynet to schedule
> callout not automatically, but on first queued packet. I believe that in
> case of laptop the queue should be empty most of time and the callout
> calls are completely useless there. Luigi promised to look on this once.
>
> What's about better precision/removing synchronization -- there is
> starting GSoC project now (by davide@) to rewrite callout(9) subsystem
> to use better precision allowed by new timer drivers. While now it is
> possible to get raw access to additional timer hardware available on
> some systems, I don't think it is a good idea.
>
> --
> Alexander Motin
>