Re: 2.6.0 performance problems

[Roger Luethi]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/