On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 6:22 AM, Denis A. Altoé Falqueto <denisfalqueto@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 5:54 PM, Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 4:08 PM, John K Pate <j.k.pate@sms.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 15:16:31 +0200 Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 7:58 PM, Denis A. Altoé Falqueto <denisfalqueto@gmail.com> wrote:
This is so stupid that it's not even funny. You said that the problem was having CONFIG_HZ=300 and systemd. I said it is not, because I also have that situation and it works. So, your point is moot. I didn't say you don't have a problem, but just that it may be not related to CONFIG_HZ. I even sent you an article with ways on how to inspect the behaviour of systemd, which was completely ignored.
My problem with CONFIG_HZ exists independently of whether you experience the problem yourself or not.
But it suggests that the problem is not *just* systemd and CONFIG_HZ=300. I am, and many others are, running systemd with CONFIG_HZ=300 fine.
Show me two bootcharts, one with CONFIG_HZ_300=y, and another with CONFIG_HZ_1000=y. Then I will believe that you are running systemd fine. The other possibility is that you are just not noticing the problem.
Chalange accepted.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9222479/bootchart-arch-hz300.png
Bootchart of 20 seconds, with Arch stock kernel, CONFIG_HZ=300. You can see that kdm is started in around 7 seconds after boot starts.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9222479/bootchart-ck-hz1000.png
Same length chart, with CK patchset kernel, from AUR package (some problems compiling stock kernel with CONFIG_HZ=1000, not related to systemd at all0. You'll be amazed to see kdm starting at around the same time.
Funny that you say "around the same time", when it's clearly less than 6 seconds, so it's 15% slower, but that's the second instance of kdm. The first instance starts at 2s in 1000 hz, and 4s in 300 hz, so there's *clearly* a big difference. Perhaps the boot of KDE is so slow that in comparison the difference is small and you don't notice the issue, but I certainly notice a *huge* difference with SLiM and Xfce. And still, you should be using the same kernel for a fair comparison, not 3.4.8 vs 3.5.2 + patches. You can certainly use 3.5.2 + patches for both. Cheers. -- Felipe Contreras