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
|
Home