On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 05:17:59PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 02:16:35PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 04:56:33PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 01:52:58PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 04:30:42PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> > >
> > > > > PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+
> COMMAND
> > > > > 10 root 20 0 0 0 0 S 200.0 0.0 185301:36
> rcu_preempt
> > > > > 553 root 20 0 268m 76m 6764 S 200.0 2.6 144579:53 Xorg
> > > > > 1199 root 20 0 0 0 0 S 200.0 0.0 306:17.85
> kworker/1:0
> > > > > 501 root 20 0 0 0 0 S 200.0 0.0 4471:03
> kworker/0:2
> > > > > 12 root 20 0 0 0 0 S 200.0 0.0 67277:16
> rcuop/1
> > > > > 1237 davej 20 0 535m 15m 8484 S 200.0 0.5 3645:16
> Terminal
> > > > > 859 davej 20 0 117m 3036 1336 S 200.0 0.1 1986:55 htop
> > > > >
> > > > > There are a lot of processes allegedly using "200%" of CPU time, a
> handful
> > > > > in the "196%" range, and then a bunch at 0.
> > > >
> > > > Yow!!! 185301 minutes is 128 days, which is a truly impressive
> amount of
> > > > CPU time to accumulate in a few short hours.
> > >
> > > perf top doesn't show anything out of the ordinary. Just as an idle
> desktop
> > > should behave, it's spending a bunch of time in delay_tsc.
> > >
> > > > This is 3.9, or Linus's current tree? I am guessing the latter, but
> > > > figured I should ask.
> > >
> > > Yeah, the latter. (v3.9-11572-g5af43c2)
> >
> > Do you have CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL=y? We just might have a bug in tickless
> > CPU-time accounting...
>
> I never saw a new config option I didn't like.
;-) ;-) ;-)
> CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL=y
> CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL_ALL=y
Adding Frederic on CC...
Thanx, Paul
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
