[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       lm-sensors
Subject:    Re: [lm-sensors] Fancontrol memory consumption
From:       Taz <rastataz () gmail ! com>
Date:       2015-02-28 13:13:07
Message-ID: 54F1BEE3.2010009 () gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]


I had to revert to first patch set : new patch consumes 30%  CPU
on my system (or 6% global CPU on Atom D510@1.66GHz).

I let it ran a few minutes from 13h56 to 14h00, then when seeing 
abnormal CPU consumption, I reverted it.





Taz (Cédric L.M.)

Le 28/02/2015 13:39, Taz a écrit :
> Hi Jean,
>
> Besides it looked strange, it didn't bother me enough so I stopped 
> monitoring and kind of gave it up too...
> But I'll certainly give the new patch a try (and restart monitoring), 
> and give you feedback of course.
>
> Thanks a lot !
>
>     Taz (Cédric L.M.)
>
>
> Le 28/02/2015 11:14, Jean Delvare a écrit :
>> Hi Taz,
>>
>> On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 15:36:32 +0100, Taz wrote:
>>> (sorry I just saw my reply still was in my drafts, don't know why...)
>>>
>>> Indeed : my current bash version is 4.3.11
>>> Although I don't have line 585 in my fancontrol script
>>> I can apply the the patch (lines 497 & 536 for fancontrol v0.7)
>> The "patch" command can apply patch files with offsets just fine.
>>
>>> I also gave it a try without the wait lines and not sending to
>>> background the previous
>>> sleep command the wait was waiting for anyway (useless ?)
>> Not sending sleep in the background reportedly caused delays or
>> undesirable behavior on system suspend or shutdown on some systems. See:
>> http://www.lm-sensors.org/changeset/4443/lm-sensors/branches/lm-sensors-3.0.0/prog/pwm/fancontrol 
>>
>>
>>> => Mem consumption seems to be the same in all cases, we'll see in the
>>> long run...
>> I discussed the issue with the upstream bash maintainer, but he claims
>> that the implementation is correct and required for Posix compliance.
>> My own tests were confusing (sometimes I could reproduce the issue,
>> sometimes not) so I couldn't reach a definitive conclusion, and
>> ultimately I forgot about it / gave up on it.
>>
>> Meanwhile someone contributed a trick to the healthd script which may
>> work just fine here too. It avoids both the call to an external command
>> and the use of wait. Can you please revert the previous patch and give
>> a try to this one instead?
>>
>> ---
>>   prog/pwm/fancontrol |    6 ++----
>>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> --- lm-sensors.orig/prog/pwm/fancontrol    2014-11-17 
>> 09:16:14.657054963 +0100
>> +++ lm-sensors/prog/pwm/fancontrol    2015-02-28 11:03:32.958562604 
>> +0100
>> @@ -545,8 +545,7 @@ function UpdateFanSpeeds
>>             then # if fan was stopped start it using a safe value
>>                 echo $minsa > $pwmo
>>               # Sleep while still handling signals
>> -            sleep 1 &
>> -            wait $!
>> +            read -t 1 -N 0
>>             fi
>>           fi
>>           echo $pwmval > $pwmo # write new value to pwm output
>> @@ -584,6 +583,5 @@ while true
>>   do
>>       UpdateFanSpeeds
>>       # Sleep while still handling signals
>> -    sleep $INTERVAL &
>> -    wait $!
>> +    read -t $INTERVAL -N 0
>>   done
>>
>> Thanks,
>

_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]