On Wed, 2008-01-16 at 08:34 +0800, Zhang, Yanmin wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-01-14 at 21:53 +1100, Herbert Xu wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 14, 2008 at 08:44:40AM +0000, Ilpo Jrvinen wrote:
> > >
> > > > > I tried to use bisect to locate the bad patch between 2.6.22 and
> > > > > 2.6.23-rc1,
> > > > > but the bisected kernel wasn't stable and went crazy.
> > >
> > > TCP work between that is very much non-existing.
> >
> > Make sure you haven't switched between SLAB/SLUB while testing this.
> I can make sure. In addition, I tried both SLAB and SLUB and make sure the
> regression is still there if CONFIG_SLAB=y.
I retried bisect between 2.6.22 and 2.6.23-rc1. This time, I enabled
CONFIG_SLAB=y,
and deleted the warmup procedure in the testing scripts. In addition, bind the 2
processes on the same logical processor. The regression is about 20% which is
larger
than the one when binding 2 processes to different core.
The new bisect reported cfs core patch causes it. The results of every step look
stable.
dd41f596cda0d7d6e4a8b139ffdfabcefdd46528 is first bad commit
commit dd41f596cda0d7d6e4a8b139ffdfabcefdd46528
Author: Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon Jul 9 18:51:59 2007 +0200
sched: cfs core code
apply the CFS core code.
this change switches over the scheduler core to CFS's modular
design and makes use of kernel/sched_fair/rt/idletask.c to implement
Linux's scheduling policies.
thanks to Andrew Morton and Thomas Gleixner for lots of detailed review
feedback and for fixlets.
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Signed-off-by: Mike Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Signed-off-by: Dmitry Adamushko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Signed-off-by: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-yanmin
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
