WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

AW: Re: AW: Re: AW: Re: [Xen-devel] Xen 3.4 strange behaviour as compare

To: "keir.fraser" <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: AW: Re: AW: Re: AW: Re: [Xen-devel] Xen 3.4 strange behaviour as compared to Xen 3.3.1
From: "Carsten Schiers" <carsten@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 15:30:05 +0200
Cc:
Delivery-date: Sat, 30 May 2009 06:30:41 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <C646BB37.C4B5%keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
No it's the kernel of Xen 3.4.0 with the same config. I will try later 
with the 
older kernel, which is the one of 06.04.2009 (I have not realy 
understood the
tagging or versioning of the Xen kernel). The other combination would be 
Xen 3.3.1
with the latest kernel. That's how we narrow it down to hypervisor vs. 
kernel.

As I use cpufreq=dom0-kernel and enable cpufreq modules in 
drivers/cpufreq/Kconfig,
I guess it should use the hypercall for idle time. But to double check, 
I generated
load in dom0. No difference. It simply doesn't step upwards. The kernel 
with cpufreq
debugging is enabled. I will also try it, maybe it's loging something 
usefull.

BR,
Carsten.

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Keir Fraser [mailto:keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Gesendet: Samstag, 30. Mai 2009 11:30
An: Carsten Schiers; xen-devel
Betreff: Re: AW: Re: AW: Re: [Xen-devel] Xen 3.4 strange behaviour as 
compared to Xen 3.3.1

Are you using the exact same dom0 kernel as before, when it worked? One
theory would be that dom0 is looking at its own idle stats, and it 
probably
is pretty idle. So then it steps down the CPUs and keeps them down. When 
you
work the CPUs, are you working dom0 hard?

 -- Keir

On 30/05/2009 07:59, "Carsten Schiers" <carsten@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Sorry, it's lowest frequency (1.0 out of 1.0, 1.8, 2.0, and 2.1 GHz).
> When booting,
> the CPU will be at 2.1 GHz, when switching the governor from 
performance
> to ondemand,
> this one will set it to 1.0 GHz, where it's sort of fixed. I can set 
it
> manually with
> cpufreq-set when switching to userspace governor, though.
> 
> So my guess is that the ondemand governor donesn't get te right
> information about idle
> time though the according hypercall. I recompiled with CPUFREQ DEBUG
> set. But as said
> earlier, I don't have that much knowledge about how to debug kernels.
> 
> BR,
> Carsten.
> 
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Keir Fraser [mailto:keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Gesendet: Freitag, 29. Mai 2009 23:31
> An: Carsten Schiers; xen-devel
> Betreff: Re: AW: Re: [Xen-devel] Xen 3.4 strange behaviour as compared
> to Xen 3.3.1
> 
> Is lowest p-state lowest or highest frequency/voltage?
> 
>  -- Keir
> 
> On 29/05/2009 17:47, "Carsten Schiers" <carsten@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> Thanks Keir, I tried it out but there is no difference. And by the
> way:
>> it
>> is in lowest p-state and doesn't come up, even if under heavy load.
> Hmm.
>> 
>> BR,
>> Carsten.
>> 
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: Keir Fraser [mailto:keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>> Gesendet: Freitag, 29. Mai 2009 17:02
>> An: Carsten Schiers; xen-devel
>> Betreff: Re: [Xen-devel] Xen 3.4 strange behaviour as compared to Xen
>> 3.3.1
>> 
>> On 29/05/2009 15:03, "Carsten Schiers" <carsten@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 
>>>   - as already reported, ondemand manager in dom0-kernel doesn't
> step,
>>> manual
>>>     setting works so it seems a bit like the communication between
>> dom0
>>> and
>>>     hypervisor regarding idle time is not working
>> 
>> Could be an interaction with C-state support, preferring deep sleep 
to
>> running at lower voltage/frequency? You could try no-cpuidle on Xen's
>> command line at boot time and see if that changes things.
>> 
>>  -- Keir
>> 
>>>   - all beside one domu use Xen 3.4.0 kernel, the one who uses it's
>>> customized
>>>     kernel won't start up as first domu. It simply hangs and this
>>> prevents also
>>>     all other domus (I all auto start them, no save/restore) don't
>> come
>>> up. When
>>>     I start the chain with a different one and this (with the
>> different
>>> kernel)
>>>     is started as #2 or #3, not problem
>>> 
>>>   - one domu is for vdr with three dvb pci cards passed trough. This
>>> one, when
>>>     started as the first one, will cause xentop to show 20% load.
> When
>>> restarted
>>>     or started as #2, the load is like with 3.3.1 at roughly 3-5%.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 





_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel