On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 6:22 AM, Denis A. Altoé Falqueto <denisfalqueto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 5:54 PM, Felipe Contreras > <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 4:08 PM, John K Pate <j.k.pate@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 15:16:31 +0200 >>> Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 7:58 PM, Denis A. Altoé Falqueto >>>> <denisfalqueto@xxxxxxxxx> 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
