"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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 07 2003 - 22:00:16 EST