Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Tue, 30 Dec 2003 23:24:03 +0100 | From | Roger Luethi <> | Subject | Re: 2.6.0 performance problems |
| |
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 11:40:51 -0800, William Lee Irwin III wrote: > Thus far interpretations of information collected this way have been > somewhat lacking. Roger Luethi has identified various points at which > regressions happened over the course of 2.5, but it appears that > information hasn't yet been and still needs to be acted on.
My data is interesting for kbuild/efax type work loads and it looks like bk export might be different. Thomas Molina tested with the patch I have occasionally posted to revert some VM changes in 2.6.0-test3: No apparent change in run time (hard to tell for sure since 2.6 increased variance considerably for some work loads).
I'm not sure how to classify the bk export. It may be the qsbench type or something new. If it is the former, then 2.5.39 performs a lot worse than 2.5.38 (and 2.6.0, for that matter).
It would also be interesting to see the numbers for 2.5.27: That's when physical scanning was introduced -- IMO that performance should be the minimal goal for 2.6.
Roger - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |