Re: 2.6.19-rc5: known regressions

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


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

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]
  Powered by Linux