Hi, I would have filed this as a bug but bugs.xiph.org doesn't seem to work (despite quite enthusiastically claiming to :)). So here goes: I'm seeing quite a few wakeups/sec in icecast2 2.3.2 on Debian Testing. In fact, whether icecast is doing anything or not, powertop reports 44.3 wakeups per second. This is pretty big number, on my laptop it means icecast alone is responsible for every third wakeup on idle. I have no time to start digging through the code right now, but please post if you have a hunch where these wakeups are coming from. If I have time later, I'll consult this thread. - Jussi
On 21/10/09 10:56, Jussi Kukkonen wrote:> Hi, > > I would have filed this as a bug but bugs.xiph.org doesn't seem to work > (despite quite enthusiastically claiming to :)). So here goes: > > I'm seeing quite a few wakeups/sec in icecast2 2.3.2 on Debian Testing. > In fact, whether icecast is doing anything or not, powertop reports 44.3 > wakeups per second. This is pretty big number, on my laptop it means > icecast alone is responsible for every third wakeup on idle. > > I have no time to start digging through the code right now, but please > post if you have a hunch where these wakeups are coming from. If I have > time later, I'll consult this thread.This will vary depending on what you have icecast doing but you should find that the trunk code has less wakeups. The connection and stats parts are not quite the same as the kh tree, although they have been changed, so you should see an improvement. karl.
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 5:53 PM, Karl Heyes <karl at xiph.org> wrote:>> I'm seeing quite a few wakeups/sec in icecast2 2.3.2 on Debian Testing. >> In fact, whether icecast is doing anything or not, powertop reports 44.3 >> wakeups per second. This is pretty big number, on my laptop it means >> icecast alone is responsible for every third wakeup on idle. > > This will vary depending on what you have icecast doing but you should find > that the trunk code has less wakeups. ?The connection and stats parts are > not quite the same as the kh tree, although they have been changed, so you > should see an improvement.Thanks, Karl. Testing with trunk I can confirm this. Just as before it doesn't seem to make difference if icecast streams something or not, but there is a significant improvement compared to 2.3.2: 2.3.2 44 wakeups/s trunk 13 wakeups/s 13 wakeups is still not optimal when in reality my icecast usually has nothing to do (no mounts, no clients), but it is a lot better. Thanks for the good work, - Jussi