 |
I think we were looking at doing this for the CentOS Plus repository. The odd issue is that some systems work better at 250Mhz (which the 2.6.18 set I think is set to) and some work better at 100Mhz and some 1000). |
 |
Yes, 2.6.18 is indeed default set to 250Hz (not MHz ;)), and since it's an smp kernel it requests 750 clock interrupts per second. |
 |
If I'm not mistaken, 2.6.18 defaults to 1000Hz. # CONFIG_HZ_100 is not set # CONFIG_HZ_250 is not set CONFIG_HZ_1000=y CONFIG_HZ=1000 I understand this is Linus Torvalds' choice. |
|
|
The official 2.6.18 linux kernel defaults to 1000 Hz, but the CentOS kernel seems to default to 250. /usr/src/kernels/2.6.18-8.el5-i686/kernel/Kconfig.hz: choice prompt "Timer frequency" default HZ_250 Having the kernel at 1000Hz is good for physical systems, and especially desktop systems. In a virtual system this have negative side effects. We have also seen similar effects in computers with slow cpus such as Soekris with Geode cpu (133MHz "486"). |
|
|
Well, the Kconfig.hz file is referred to when configuring .config with make menuconfig (or make xconfig). In fact, if you go to the bottom of that file, it has these lines: config HZ int default 100 if HZ_100 default 250 if HZ_250 default 1000 if HZ_1000 In the CentOS kernel (and mainline kernel), "CONFIG_HZ_1000=y" is defined, there fore the timer frequency becomes 1000. Hope this clears a bit. Akemi |
|
2007-07-13 23:56
|
centos-cpuload.png (95,657 bytes) |
|
2007-07-13 23:57
|
debian-cpuload.png (64,032 bytes) |
|
|
Ok, I believe you Akemi, even though smooge got me confuzed and investigating the 250Hz option for a second there. ;) Having Hz=1000 and a SMP enabled kernel is still a problem in a virtualized environment. Having installed a minimal CentOS with the default kernel in ESX3 on a system with 8x Xeon MP 1900MHz cpus we see the following. Inside the VM, the load is near 0, while outside of the VM we can see that it's using a lot of resources. If we compare it to another virtual machine running debian and a 2.4 kernel we can see how much they differ in the load generated. The debian VM is a LAMP setup in prod, but currently for the most of the time idling. I've now uploaded a cpu graph for both these so we can get a clearer view of how CentOS is behaving. Lars |
|
|
Is there any chance you can rebuild the kernel yourself with the desired options? If not, are you willing to run performance tests if the kernel is provided? Akemi |
|
|
If a kernel was provided I would of course test it's performance. I could probably build such a kernel myself too (even though that is not something I've done too many times). I believe such kernel would benefit the popularity of CentOS in virtualized environments. I filed this bug report after asking about this in #centos and I was told that this question was brought up from time to time and it could be a good idea to provide such a kernel in the repository. Lars |
|
|
Which arch (i686 or x86_64) would you like to test? I am myself thinking of doing a test. I totally agree with you. If the optimized kernels are available from CentOS, that would benefit a number of users. However, this would depend on the time and resources the CentOS team can afford. Positive test results from multiple users might help them determine if the whole thing is worth the effort. Akemi |
|
|
I would like to test i686 first. Thanks. |
|
|
I currently have x86_64 only. Will build i686 soon. Akemi |
|
|
Lars, I now have both i686 and x86_64 (UP, 100Hz) kernel and kernel-devel rpm's. Send me e-mail (amyagi at gmail dot com) for download instructions. Akemi Note added: Just booted the i686 version in my VM. So far so good. |
|
2007-07-14 21:24
|
centos-cpuload-up-100hz.png (79,737 bytes) |
|
|
Wow, that really did it, Akemi! :) The cpu load is now reduced from ~15% to 3% and %READY is reduced from ~4% to 0.4%. The remaining cpu load is probably caused by the default installed services. I've uploaded another graph showing the load before, during and after the kernel change, and you can really see how the load changes. Lars |
|
|
That's really good news, Lars. The graph is impressive. Akemi |
|
|
Just wanted add one thing. smooge's note is not really incorrect. I noticed a few minutes ago that xen kernel is set to 250Hz. It is the standard kernel that uses 1000Hz by default. Akemi |
|
|
Lars Since you have been testing with these kernels, could you make a comment as to what change contributed to the better performance to what extent? In other words, changing 1000 -> 100Hz versus SMP -> UP. How does each change contribute? Akemi |
|
|
Akemi, It seems that the UP vs SMP is the thing most affecting things here. Also, on newer cpus, this isn't as noticable as on old cpus. The 1900 Xeon I've been using is 4 years old. The results are however a bit surprising as they show quite similar results for both SMP kernels. The kernel builds do however differ slightly and I don't know if that is affecting anything: kernel-2.6.18-8.1.8.UP.100Hz.el5.i686 <- Akemi kernel up 100Hz cpu 2.24% ready 0.27% kernel-2.6.18-8.1.4.el5.centos.plus.VMware.i686 <- xaox kernel smp 100Hz cpu 14.3% ready 5% kernel-2.6.18-8.1.8.el5.i686 <- default kernel smp 1000Hz cpu 13.6% ready 3.15% Lars |
|
|
Lars, Very interesing result. But as you pointed out, this could be an apples-to-oranges comparison. If you are willing to take it further for completedness, I'd have no problem rebuilding other two kernels (Hz change only and SMP change only). What do you think? Akemi |
|
|
Yes, I agree. Some further testing would help us understand more of these findings, and I'm willing to continue this testing. Lars |
|
|
Great. I said, "I'd have no problem rebuilding..." However, I am having a problem with the build process right now. But I will fix it one way or another. Akemi |
|
|
Lars, I now have the other 2 variants: kernel-2.6.18-8.1.8.SMP.100HZ.el5.i686.rpm kernel-2.6.18-8.1.8.UP.1000HZ.el5.i686.rpm They are in the same place as before. Akemi |
|
|
Just to be sure I reinstalled CentOS and tried all these kernels on a freshly installed CentOS to get as accurate results as possible. I have to admit, the results were much more like I had expected. :-) kernel-2.6.18-8.1.8.el5.i686 <- Default smp 1000Hz cpu 13.06% ready 4.32% kernel-2.6.18-8.1.8.UP.100Hz.el5.i686 <- Akemi kernel up 100Hz cpu 1.93% ready 0.23% kernel-2.6.18-8.1.8.UP.1000Hz.el5.i686 <- Akemi kernel up 1000Hz cpu 8.88% ready 3.03% kernel-2.6.18-8.1.8.SMP.100Hz.el5.i686 <- Akemi kernel smp 100Hz cpu 2.35% ready 0.36% kernel-2.6.18-8.1.4.el5.centos.plus.VMware.i686 <- xaox kernel smp 100Hz cpu 14.16% ready 4.80% |
|
|
Lars, you are so fast. All the tests were done while I was asleep :) Good results indeed. I suspect that xaox' kernel is not really 100Hz. Did not read the details of his vmware post, but the way it was done (by editing some .h file) would not make the intended change in the freq in the config. At any rate, I am glad we have a full set of data. Akemi |
|
|
I was just made aware of this bug report. I have checked and my kernels were built with HZ=1000, not HZ=100. I have a build problem I need to work out. |
|
|
xaox, What build problem are you having? Could you describe it in more details? Akemi |
|
|
toracat, The build problem as it turns out is that I'm an idiot. At some point my updated kernel configuration files were overwritten with the originals and I didn't notice. I'm rebuilding now with the fixed config files. |
|
|
xaox, No worry. That happened to me once, too. :D Akemi |
|
|
I now have a new build of the latest plus kernel with HZ=100. |
|
|
The 100Hz kernels referred to in this report (2.6.18-8.1.8 for CentOS 4 and 5) are now available from: http://people.centos.org/~hughesjr/vmware-kernels/ (thanks to hughesjr) Akemi |
|
|
A couple of minor points on the hughesjr vmware kernel repo. There is repodata present, so one might expect to use yum for installation; however, ... 1. If the lowest level x86 directories were named i386 instead of i686 then $basearch would work in a yum repo definition for either arch. 2. yum does not see these kernels as an upgrade. Perhaps they could have names with a higher lexical order, e.g. kernel-smp-2.6.9-55.0.2.vm.c4.100HZ.i686.rpm (consistent with plus naming) rather than kernel-smp-2.6.9-55.0.2.EL.100HZ.i686.rpm. /etc/yum.repos.d/hughesjr.repo [vm-kernels] name=CentOS-$releasever - VMware Kernels baseurl=http://people.centos.org/~hughesjr/vmware-kernels/$releasever/$basearch/ gpgcheck=1 # ??? enabled=0 protect=1 priority=1 Phil |
 |
actually, not a bad idea is to use: <kerenel-version>.vm.c[4,5].100HZ.$arch.rpm Since vm is > plus (c4plus) and > EL (c4) and > el (c5 and c5plus) ... then that COULD BE an upgrade to everything. However, if you don't exclude=kernel* then you could upgrade to other regular versions. I'm not going to recompile the kernels now .. but in the future we will name them .vm. something. |
|
|
reopening |
|
|
the right way of doing this, allowing users to opt in when they want - would be to name the kernel rpms as kernel-vm-<version> rather than kernel-<version>.vm otherwise it only causes thrashing in yum, and confuses the users. |
|
|
I've also tried booting different kernels with different parameters. These numbers differ sligthly from the initial ones as I've used a new freshly installed OS for the latest tests: 1000Hz SMP cpu 13.06% ready 4.32% (default) 1000Hz UP cpu 8.88 ready 3.03 100Hz SMP cpu 2.35 ready 0.36 100Hz UP cpu 1.93 ready 0.23 1000Hz SMP "nosmp noapic nolapic" cpu 4.21 ready 2.35 1000Hz UP "nosmp noapic nolapic" cpu 3.97 ready 2.45 100Hz SMP "nosmp noapic nolapic" cpu 0.895 ready 0.254 100Hz UP "nosmp noapic nolapic" cpu 0.788 ready 0.156 100Hz SMP cpu 1.38 ready 0.521 100Hz SMP noapic cpu 1.37 ready 0.294 100Hz UP cpu 1.0 ready 0.310 |
|
|
Does anybody have any idea when a corresponding kernel might start appearing in CentOS Plus? |
|
|
The 100Hz kernels are available for CentOS-4 and -5 and can be found in testing: http://dev.centos.org/centos/4/testing/ http://dev.centos.org/centos/5/testing/ Look for kernel-vm-xxx Akemi |
|
|
Here's some feedback. Host = 2 x 2.8GHz CPU x86_64. Two VMs, one is 2 CPU x86_64, the other is 2 CPU i686. When both vm's are idle, host CPU hovers around 50%. Using 2.6.9-55.0.9 kernel in host and guests. With the 100HZ kernels (i686 and x86_64) deployed in the guests, host cpu now hovers around 8% when vm's are idle. I also deployed the devel packages for the vm kernels so that vmware tools works. No bad side effects. Thank you for making these packages available. |
|
|
Those who are interested in this subject may also be interested in vmware pre-built images for CentOS. See bug #1722 for details. |
|
|
I can heartily concur with others that this has made a very big difference. I have a dual Opteron (2 GHz) system with CentOS x86_64 as the host, and my CentOS guests went from consuming around 5% usage to around 1.2%. These are 32-bit guests by the way. On another AMD Duron 1.2 GHz, OpenSuse (32-bit) system I have the CPU usage has gone down from around 10% - 15% down to around 0.7% at idle, which is consistent with the other OpenSuse and Windows guests I have. These are just unscientific ps and top readings, but the changes are significant. The idle CPU usage still seems to be slightly higher than other Linux and Windows guests though, especially on the x86_64 system, although this could be down to the host being 64-bit, it could be due to variances in guest kernel versions where certain timer numbers work better, or something else. More experimentation is needed. I also have my own customised guests we're I'm using LVM, so this might make a difference. My guests are all UP, so using the kernel parameters "nosmp noapic nolapic" also seems to have a positive effect. Note: don't put 'nosmp' in by itself otherwise you'll get a nice kernel panic! I'm slightly surprised that the upstream vendor doesn't seem to have anything open regarding this. I would imagine this could be a pretty big problem. |
|
|
The new kernel for RHEL 5.1 (2.6.18-53) has a new kernel option called "tick divider". It will let you reduce the system clock rate to 100, 250, etc Hz while allowing you to boot the kernel with 1000Hz. Below is a note from the patch file that adds this feature. How this performs compared to kernel compiled with 100Hz remains to be seen. Akemi ================================================================= From: Alan Cox <alan@redhat.com> Subject: [RHEL5]: Tick Divider (Bugzilla #215403] Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 16:39:15 -0400 Bugzilla: 215403 Message-Id: <20070418203915.GA23344@devserv.devel.redhat.com> Changelog: [x86] Tick Divider The following patch implements a tick divider feature that allows you to boot the kernel with HZ at 1000 but the real timer tick rate lower (thus not breaking all the modules and kABI). The selection is done at boot to minimize risk and the patch has been reworked so that you can do an informal attempt at a proof that it doesn't cause regression for the non dividing case. The patch interleaved with notes follows, and below that the actual patch proper. Xen kernels remain at 250HZ because a) Xen guests have a 'tickless mode' b) Xen itself has issues with multiple differing guest GZ rates Not queued for upstream as the upstream path is Ingo's tickless kernel, which is not viable as a RHEL5 tweak ================================================================== |
|
2007-11-11 14:16
|
2007Nov10.png (26,478 bytes) |
|
|
I have built the 5.1 kernel (2.6.18-53) and collected a preliminary result using vmktree developed by the original reporter, Lars (see the attached graph, 2007Nov10.png). The large peaks are when the system was booted. The cpu levels between boots are marked with the kernel and the option used. kernel-vm is the CentOS version of 100Hz kernel (in which 100Hz is compiled into the kernel). It looks as if the tick_divider=10 (or =4) option had no effect on the idle %cpu. This was not an expected result. However, I do not have a way to verify that the tick_divider option was indeed honored when I added it to the kernel line. |
|
2007-11-15 23:16
|
C5_i386_Nov15.jpg (54,963 bytes) |
|
2007-11-15 23:19
|
C5_x86_64Nov15.jpg (56,001 bytes) |
|
|
I have repeated the test with a new host machine that has freshly installed CentOS 5.0 x86_64 (packages all up-to-date). I installed CentOS-5 (i386 and x86_64) as vmware guests and updated their kernel to 2.6.18-53. The attached graphs are the output of vmktree as before. C5_i386_Nov15.jpg -- The result with the 32-bit guest was the same as the previous test. The tick_divider=10 option (to make HZ=100) did not have a discernible effect on %idle cpu whereas kernel-vm (100HZ compiled in the kernel) lowered it. C5_x86_64Nov15.jpg -- The behavior of the 64-bit guest was curious. No apparent difference was seen regardless of the kernels/options used. They all look similar to the output of the kernel-vm 32-bit. ??? Akemi |
|
|
All my tests so far have been done with the new 5.1 kernel installed on 5.0. Now that updated rpm's for 5.1 are available from the QA repo, I updated the system to 5.1 and re-ran the test. The result was different. In short, on an i386 system, it all looked like the output of the x86_64 machine (see the graph C5_x86_64Nov15.jpg). When the update files for the x86_64 arch are complete 1n the QA repo, I will upgrade my 64-bit test systems to 5.1 and do more testing. Akemi |
|
|
Just installed CentOS 5.1 on a single CPU VM running on VMware ESX. The tick_divider setting doesn't seem to be making any difference in the number of timer interrupts though. I set tick_divider=10 which should reduce the number of timer interrupts to 100. I wrote a nasty little scripts that queries /proc/interrupts every 1 second and still see an increase each second in about 1000 interrupts. Also, when watching the reporting capabilities of the ESX hypervisor I see no reduction in CPU utilization on the idle VM. Just a side note when I append "nosmp noapic nolapic" as kernel parameters I do see a very nice reduction in CPU utilization however. So the combination of the parameters that do work and the newly added tick_divider would really benefit us. The server is: uname -srvmpio Linux 2.6.18-53.1.4.el5 #1 SMP Fri Nov 30 00:45:16 EST 2007 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux The pertinent data from grub.conf title CentOS (2.6.18-53.1.4.el5) root (hd0,0) kernel /vmlinuz-2.6.18-53.1.4.el5 ro root=/dev/rootvg/rootfs rhgb quiet clocksource=pit tick_divider=10 initrd /initrd-2.6.18-53.1.4.el5.img |
|
|
Sorry, in the previous post I manually typed the grub.conf lines and tick_divider should equal 10. In my grub.conf "tick_divider=10". Sorry about the typo. |
|
|
upstream says this works on i686 and not on x86_64 (the tick_divider option that is) I have had the same experience as you ... that it does not make any difference in VMWare |
|
|
Have you tested it on bare i686 hardware? |
|
|
A question for centos devs (maybe tru?): Are you planning to build kernel-vm for 5.1? It would be good to have it for comparing the "real" 100Hz kernel and the tick_divider-tweaked version. If this is not being planned, I could build it but would rather not do it myself this time. Akemi |
|
|
I would be willing to test the 100Hz kernel on vmware and compare that to the tick_divider setting. |
 |
the kernel-vm will be available shortly from the buildsystem, meanwhile I have built them inside my chrooted centos-5 tree. I will put them on dev.centos.org/~tru/kernel-vm asap. |
|
|
http://dev.centos.org/~tru/kernel-vm/RPMS/ contains now the chrooted builds. the i386 kernel boots fine ;) Linux version 2.6.18-53.1.4.el5vm (centos@blackwilson.bis.pasteur.fr) (gcc version 4.1.2 20070626 (Red Hat 4.1.2-14)) #1 SMP Thu Dec 6 11:09:34 EST 2007 |
|
|
Tru, Thank you for providing these kernels. I have already downloaded both arches. Will run some tests over the weekend. Akemi |
|
|
Just a quick note to tell you that with the latest version of kernel-vm, I was able to repeat my earlier observation that tick_divider had no visible effect. This was done with both i386 and x86_64. The graphs will follow shortly. Thanks, Tru, for building the -vm kernels in a timely manner. Akemi |
|
2007-12-08 18:14
|
53.1.4i386.png (30,921 bytes) |
|
2007-12-08 18:15
|
53.1.4x86_64.png (30,880 bytes) |
|
|
Uploaded the graphs showing the test results with the kernel 2.6.18-53.1.4 with no option, tick_divider=10, and kernel-vm (100Hz) for i386 (53.1.4i386.png) and x86_64 (53.1.4x86_64.png). Only the kernel-vm effectively lowered the %cpu. Akemi |
|
|
A question for Lars: We talked quite a while ago about possible inaccurate measurements that are based on "per time". I recall you indicated that your vmktree is not affected by that issue. So, do you think the graphs I collected are all real and therefore imply that the tick_divider option is not working the same way as the "real" 100Hz kernels? I am pasting the quote from the Linux Journal for others to see. ==== begin quote ==== As Vassili Karpov has discovered to his dismay, CPU stats are not accurately reported in /proc/stat on the PC architecture. On that architecture, CPU usage is examined only during the timer interrupt, so regular programs can seem to use much more or much less of the CPU, just because they happen to be either very active or idle at those particular intervals. This also explains why users might see a difference in CPU usage when switching their kernel from running at 100Hz to 1,000Hz. In fact, the usage is unchanged, while only the accounting is different. Programs like top, which get their CPU stats from /proc/stat, will suffer from this kind of discrepancy. Vassili and his friends wasted quite a bit of time trying to optimize some code they were working on, until they discovered that they were optimizing toward an inaccurate and ever-changing goal. ==== end quote ==== Akemi |
|
2007-12-10 00:22
|
2.6.18-53.i686-esx-xeon-15-2-8.png (57,973 bytes) |
|
|
For VMware Server running on linux, vmktree uses the same methods as top/ps to read the cpu load so it definitely has the same bug as these other tools. When vmktree is used to get stats from VMware ESX Server it will however read these values out of the kernel of the ESX (vmkernel). This kernel is not based on linux and it is unknown whether the vmkernel is also having this same bug or not. I have however done the same tests as you and the results are very similar. I now used the minimal centos5 vmware image provided in bug id 1722. Lars |
|
|
Lars, Thanks for doing the test. Your result is very assuring. Mine was done on vmware server but the similarity is striking. Akemi |
|
|
I've loaded and monitored the i686 VM kernel on an ESX virtual machine and immediately saw a very large reduction in idle time CPU utilization. This was seen using the built-in reporting utilities of the ESX hypervisor. I then reverted to the same kernel version from the CentOS updates repository and used the tick_divider kernel parameter without, what seems to be, any affect. It's actually quite striking the difference in utilization. I ran my same ugly script that polls /proc/interrupts every one second and saw that the difference was between 100-102 timer interrupts a second with the VM kernel provided by tru. To me it still seems like the tick_divider argument isn't cutting back on the number of timer interrupts. |
|
|
It is "good" that all our results lead to the same conclusion -- seemingly no effect by the use of the tick_divider option. This makes us wonder what it does or is supposed to do. Another question is how we want to give feedback to upstream. Should one of us file a bug report at Bugzilla? Akemi |
|
|
Forgot to mention (because it is so obvious) that CentOS users benefit from the kernel-vm offered by CentOS until the upstream kernel comes up with a version that actually works as intended. So, tru, your efforts are really appreciated! Akemi |
|
|
A test kernel was made available upstream that contains a "Patch to fix some of the tick divider problems" (see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=315471 ) I tested this kernel (2.6.18-58.el5), but the result was the same. Akemi |
|
|
Hello, I did some of the work on the tick divider patch in the RedHat kernels. Would it be possible for someone to try out the latest RedHat errata kernel available (at this point, it would be 2.6.18-53.1.4.el5) And use the correct kernel command-line option for the divider: divider=10 and see if that gives some better results? Thanks, Chris Lalancette |
|
|
Chris, I am running a test as I type using the kernel 2.6.18-53.1.4.el5 and the option "divider=10" as suggested. Unlike earlier tests, it now looks like the result is similar to the CentOS kernel-vm. My question is: Was the option supposed to be "divider=" and NOT "tick_divider=" from the very beginning? And we are all wasting our time? Or is this a recent change? The Release Notes for RHEL 5.1 clearly state: " The tick_divider=<value> option is a sysfs parameter that allows you to adjust the system clock rate while maintaining the same visible HZ timing value to user space applications. Using the tick_divider= option allows you to reduce CPU overhead and increase efficiency at the cost of lowering the accuracy of timing operations and profiling." Akemi |
|
|
/me goes to look at the Release Notes....sigh. The answer to your question is that yes, it has been "divider=" all along. It looks like there was a typo somewhere along the way with the release notes. I'll try to get that rectified online here. Note that the kernel released with 5.1 (-53) had some bugs in the divider that are further fixed in -53.1.2, so you would need at least 53.1.2 to get it really working. As far as whether you are wasting your time, I can't say. I was pointed here by Jarod Wilson, and I was trying to accomplish two things by posting here: 1) Trying to dissuade CentOS from building a separate kernel, if possible, given the functionality already in 5.1. 2) Make sure that there aren't additional outstanding bugs in the current divider patch that would affect both RH and CentOS. Chris Lalancette |
|
|
Chris, Thanks for posting here to let us know of the correct option. I have another question. Do you know if the x86_64 kernel now works as well? Akemi |
|
|
Akemi, With the latest errata kernel (-53.1.4), all of the issues I know about on both i686 and x86_64 are fixed. Of course, if you run into any additional problems, please let me know so that I can try to track it down. Chris Lalancette |
|
|
Thanks Chris, I just talked with some people on the #vmware IRC. They wonder how many RH systems have been running with the incorrect option. Someone is already sending a note to his customer. But at lease it was good that the error was noticed here. Akemi |
|
|
When using divider=10 and manually overriding the clocksource as a kernel parameter (to avoid in the future clock drift), the vm hangs on startup. After LVM initialization the following error is displayed: BUG: soft lockup detected on CPU#0! Ultimately, the vm never seems to come up. According to http://kb.vmware.com/selfservice/microsites/search.do?language=en_US&cmd=displayKC&externalId=1420 we shouldn't need to worry about time keeping algorithms which attempt to catch up too aggressively in the 2.6.18 kernel. If I don't manually override the clocksource then the clock drifts into the future. Any recommendations on how to manually override the clocksource to an algorithm that doesn't attempt to "catch up" and still use the divider kernel parameter. Relevant info: cat /sys/devices/system/clocksource/clocksource0/available_clocksource acpi_pm jiffies tsc pit cat /sys/devices/system/clocksource/clocksource0/current_clocksource tsc uname -r 2.6.18-53.1.4.el5 cat /proc/cmdline ro root=/dev/rootvg/rootfs rhgb quiet divider=10 clocksource=pit |
|
|
"When using divider=10 and manually overriding the clocksource as a kernel parameter (to avoid in the future clock drift), the vm hangs on startup." I was able to reproduce this with my VM (2.6.18-53.1.4.el5 i686) and divider=10 clocksource=pit. It hangs upon boot. However, with the CentOS kernel-vm (2.6.18-53.1.4.el5vm) and clocksource=pit, the same VM booted normally. Kernel command line: ro root=LABEL=/ rhgb quiet clocksource=pit ACPI: (supports S0 S1<6>Time: pit clocksource has been installed. Akemi edit by hughesjr: relevant upstream bug: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=315471 |
|
2008-01-03 00:51
|
divider10_i686_Jan022007.png (28,267 bytes) |
|
|
I have uploaded the test result from Note 6630 (divider10_i686_Jan022007.png) http://bugs.centos.org/file_download.php?file_id=413&type=bug Akemi |
|
|
the "divider=" option still has some issues (I think) based on this bug: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=315471 so we will maintain the kernel-vm until resolved. |
|
|
OK ... I have tested the latest i686 kernel from here: http://people.redhat.com/dzickus/el5/ Which is kernel-2.6.18-62.el5.i686.rpm and "divider=10 clocksource=pit" hangs the boot. As a side note ... if the clock GAINS (runs to fast) time you should be able to fix it with this: http://kb.vmware.com/kb/1591 (by setting the correct host.cpukHz) and vmware tools should adjust a clock that is too slow. Also see this blog entry concerning host.cpukHz: http://blog.autoedification.com/2006/11/vmware-guest-clock-runs-fast.html |
|
|
jhughes: bug 315471 is resolved in both the 5.2 development kernel and in the 53.1.4 errata kernel. However, it seems like we still have a problem with the "clocksource=pit divider=10". smccl or toracat: I don't actually have VMware to test with, so it would be great if one of you could run a few tests. First, are you running i686 or x86_64 VMs? I'm suspecting i686 since clocksource=pit doesn't make a huge difference in x86_64 VMware, but I just want to confirm. In terms of tests, I am interested in: 1) Try booting -53.1.4 with "divider=10" only. Does that work? 2) Try booting -62 with "divider=10" only. Does that work? 3) Try booting -53.1.4 with "divider=10 clocksource=pit". Does that work (probably not, based on earlier comments)? 4) Try booting -62 with "divider=10 clocksource=pit". Does that work? For 3) and 4), if they both don't work, it would be great if you could get an "Alt-Sysrq-t" output from both of them and add them to this bug. Thanks, Chris Lalancette |
|
2008-01-03 15:38
|
bootup-vi.txt (13,801 bytes) |
|
|
I am testing on the i686 arch and will only be able to use the errata kernel mentioned 2.6.18-53.1.4.el5. I have confirmed that using just divider=10 works with the expected results and using just clocksource=pit works with the expected results. I added a virtual serial port to the virtual machine and appeneded the bootup sequence with call traces to the bootup-vi.txt file. The "Alt-Sysrq-t" key sequence seemed ineffective even after enabling the functionality in /etc/sysctl.conf but every other keystroke and combination was ineffective as well during the system start up where both clocksource and divider are set. It may be worth noting that the virtual machine uses 100% of its available cpu (UP) the entire time. Eventually I just give up and perform a hard shutdown of the vm. I tried booting up with clocksource=pit and divider=2 and eventually the system came up but very slowly. Once up remote ssh sessions had a very poor response time and keystrokes were delayed (the system just seemed busy). Once in I noticed that commands like date were reporting very erratic results. From one iteration of the command to the next (maybe 3 seconds) several hours of time would gain or even a whole day. Sorry I can't continue testing to much unless it's on my own time. Maybe this evening some. |
|
|
Chris, With regard to the -62 kernel, the "divider=10" only works. With both "divider=10" and "clocksource=pit", it attempts to continue the boot process, but as smccl said, cpu shoots to 100% and the whole thing is practically "dead". Akemi |
|
|
FYI the "clocksource=pit divider=10" bug; I've opened a RedHat Bugzilla about it here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427588 I have a good idea of what the problem is, I just need to come up with an acceptable solution. Chris Lalancette |
|
2008-01-05 22:13
|
c51-i386-divider.png (36,709 bytes) |
 |
Just to add a note/comment to the (already long) list : i've tested a centos 5.1 i386 with the kernel 2.6.18-53.1.4.el5 / divider=10 option. I've attached the result (c51-i386-divider.png) in the 'Attached files' on this page. It seems to work as expected. I've only a couple of lines at boot time but the machine boots and everything seem ok after (from dmesg): CPU0: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 5600+ stepping 03 Total of 1 processors activated (5639.48 BogoMIPS). ENABLING IO-APIC IRQs ..TIMER: vector=0x31 apic1=0 pin1=2 apic2=-1 pin2=-1 ..MP-BIOS bug: 8254 timer not connected to IO-APIC ...trying to set up timer (IRQ0) through the 8259A ... failed. ...trying to set up timer as Virtual Wire IRQ... failed. ...trying to set up timer as ExtINT IRQ...<6>spurious APIC interrupt on CPU#0, should never happen. spurious APIC interrupt on CPU#0, should never happen. spurious APIC interrupt on CPU#0, should never happen. spurious APIC interrupt on CPU#0, should never happen. spurious APIC interrupt on CPU#0, should never happen. spurious APIC interrupt on CPU#0, should never happen. spurious APIC interrupt on CPU#0, should never happen. spurious APIC interrupt on CPU#0, should never happen. <snip> works. Brought up 1 CPUs |
|
|
added a link to the uploaded file : http://bugs.centos.org/file_download.php?file_id=417&type=bug |
|
|
With regard to the problem using both clocksource=pit and divider=10 at the same time, I was wondering if anyone has tried any of the other clocks? Specifically the acpi_pm clock, which manages to keep very good time on CentOS running on an ESX server. Although the pit option doesn't drift into the future, we were still having issues with clock drift and over correction by the vmware-tools, so VMware support suggested using the pmtmr (acpi_pm in 2.6 kernels) clock instead, which has worked. However, we still need the 100Hz option otherwise the ESX server can't cope. So this new kernel parameter should do the trick, but I currently have no way of testing the effect of the divide option along with the acpi_pm clock. |
|
|
Reporting success using divider=10 clocksource=acpi_pm Using kernel 2.6.18-53.1.4.el5.centos.plus in a VM running on VMware ESX 3.0.2. At rest CPU usage drops from ~50Mhz to ~12Mhz. Will have to see whether clock drift is acceptable. |
|
|
Er, that last note ate my tildes. Usage dropped from about 50Mhz (2.4%) to about 12Mhz (.64%) |
|
|
delimiter, are you using the time sync functionality of vmware-tools in combination with acpi_pm? |
|
|
The clocksource=acpi_pm kernel option I specified earlier was misinformed. According to VMware's timekeeping whitepaper "pmtmr" and not acpi_pm would be the proper option... however since this is the default I have removed clocksource altogether. smccl: yes we are using tools.syncTime = "TRUE" Again, this is on Vmware ESX 3.0.2 |
|
|
delimiter, the VMware white paper is based on the old 2.4 kernel and pmtmr does not exist in the new 2.6 kernel. Instead, acpi_pm has replaced it and it is not the default clocksource in the 2.6 kernel, which is why we specify it manually. |
|
|
Chris, I see that you have corrected the Release Notes. However, there is one more place in the x86_64 version of the Notes that still says "tick_divider" as in: Using the tick_divider command-line argument ... Akemi |
|
|
hi there, we use the xaox repository to run our Servers virtualized in VMWare ESX 3.5. The precompiled kernels (thanks xaox!!) work very well. Does anyone knows wether there exist a repository with VMI-Support also enabled? The current Ubuntu kernels already have VMI enabled as default. It would be nice, if this where the standard in CentOS also. kind regards and thanks for your help. Matthias Leonhardt |
|
|
CONFIG_VMI is not in any of the Kernels that are currently in RHEL-5 ... even the test kernels. This was not added to the kernel tree until 2.6.21 and I do not see any patches anywhere that roll it back into any 2.6.18 kernels. I do not think that CentOS will be creating a kernel that is outside the 2.6.18 tree to turn this on. Here is a reference: http://kerneltrap.org/node/14848 |
|
|
Using the 2.6.18-92.1.6 x86_64 kernel-vm, I am trying to determine why the only available clocksource is 'jiffies'. It seems that the arch/x86_64/kernel/time directory does not contain the same set of clocksources that the i386 directory does. I see a (possible) patch for this, at http://sr71.net/~jstultz/tod/broken-out/ - but I am curious if there was a reason why these clocksources (hpet, tsc) are not included in the Centos x86_64 kernels? The reason I ask, is that I cannot get the x86_64 VMs to keep proper time using jiffies, and while I could go back to i386, I'd really rather stay with the x86_64 kernel. |
|
|
http://kb.vmware.com/kb/1006427 lists the timekeeping best practices for a number of distributions. |
|
|
Promising patches that would improve timekeeping were made available for RHEL-5 by vmware: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=463573 However, they will not appear until RHEL *5.4* :-( |
|
|
Unless I made a mistake the first time, the recommended values have changed. before sept 19th the recommended values with the vmware KB for RHEL-4 32 bits: "divider=10 clock=pit" for RHEL-5 32 bits: "divider=10 clocksource=acpi_pm" for RHEL-4 64 bits: "divider=10 clock=pit" for RHEL-5 64 bits: "notsc divider=10" as of oct 10th it's now (Last Modified Date: 09-22-2008ID: 1006427:) for RHEL-4 32 bits: **CHANGED** "clock=pmtmr divider=10" for RHEL-5 32 bits: (unchanged) "divider=10 clocksource=acpi_pm" for RHEL-4 64 bits: **CHANGED** "notsc divider=10" for RHEL-5 64 bits: (unchanged) "notsc divider=10" the new vmware guests will reflect the changes on the next release. |
|
|
http://kb.vmware.com/kb/1007020 links to RHSA-2008:0519 (kernel-2.6.18-92.1.6.el5.src.rpm) |
|
|
closed due to inactivity. Please re-open if the problem exists with new versions. |
- Anonymous
