Re: 2.6.19-rc5: known regressions

[Tim Chen]

On Wed, 2006-11-08 at 17:22 +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:

> There's perhaps one thing that might help us to see whether it's just a 
> benchmark effekt or a real problem:
> 
> With Tim's CONFIG_NR_CPUS=8, NR_IRQS only increases from 224 in 2.6.18 
> to 512 in 2.6.19-rc.
> 
> With CONFIG_NR_CPUS=255, NR_IRQS increases from 224 in 2.6.18
> to 8416 in 2.6.19-rc.
> 
> @Tim:
> Can you try CONFIG_NR_CPUS=255 with both 2.6.18 and 2.6.19-rc5?
> 

With CONFIG_NR_CPUS increased from 8 to 64:
2.6.18     see no change in fork time measured.
2.6.19-rc5 see a 138% increase in fork time.

When I increase CONFIG_NR_CPUS to 128, the child process
from fork got killed when it executes sched_getaffinity call
in the routine to pin the process onto a processor.
This happened for both 2.6.18 and 2.6.19-rc5.
I'll need to check more carefully what lmbench is doing
there.

Tim
-
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/