Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 1 Mar 2003 02:40:24 -0800 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: anticipatory scheduling questions |
| |
"Felipe Alfaro Solana" <felipe_alfaro@linuxmail.org> wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > It wasn't a typo... In fact, both deadline and AS give roughly the same > > > timings (one second up or down). But I > > > still don't understand why 2.5 is performing so much worse than 2.4. > > > > Me either. It's a bug. > > > > Does basic 2.5.63 do the same thing? Do you have a feel for when it started > > happening? > > This has happened since the moment I switched from 2.4 to 2.5.63-mm1.
You have not actually said whether 2.5.63 base exhibits the same problem. From the vmstat traces it appears that the answer is "yes"?
> > > Could a "vmstat" or "iostat" dump be interesting? > > 2.4 versus 2.5 would be interesting, yes. > > I have retested this with 2.4.20-2.54, 2.5.63 and 2.5.63-mm1... > and have attached the files to this message
Thanks. Note how 2.4 is consuming a few percent CPU, whereas 2.5 is consuming 100%. Approximately half of it system time.
It does appear that some change in 2.5 has caused evolution to go berserk during this operation.
> (I think pasting them > here would result in wrapping, making it harder to read). > > If you need more testing or benchmarking, ask for it :-)
Thanks for your patience.
The next step please is:
a) run top during the operation, work out which process is chewing all that CPU. Presumably it will be evolution or aspell
b) Do it again and this time run
strace -p $(pidof evolution) # or aspell
This will tell us what it is up to.
- 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/
| |