* Jie Chen <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi, Ingo:
>
> I guess it is a good news. I did patch 2.6.21.7 kernel using your cfs
> patch. The results of pthread_sync is the same as the non-patched
> 2.6.21 kernel. This means the performance of is not related to the
> scheduler. As for overhead of the gettimeofday, there is no difference
> between 2.6.21 and 2.6.24-rc4. The reference time is around 10.5 us
> for both kernel.
could you please paste again the relevant portion of the output you get
on a "good" .21 kernel versus the output you get on a "bad" .24 kernel?
> So what is changed between 2.6.21 and 2.6.22? Any hints :-). Thank you
> very much for all your help.
we'll figure it out i'm sure :)
Ingo
--
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/
- References:
- Re: Possible bug from kernel 2.6.22 and above, 2.6.24-rc4
- Re: Possible bug from kernel 2.6.22 and above, 2.6.24-rc4
- Re: Possible bug from kernel 2.6.22 and above, 2.6.24-rc4
- Re: Possible bug from kernel 2.6.22 and above, 2.6.24-rc4
- Re: Possible bug from kernel 2.6.22 and above, 2.6.24-rc4
- Re: Possible bug from kernel 2.6.22 and above, 2.6.24-rc4
- Re: Possible bug from kernel 2.6.22 and above, 2.6.24-rc4
- Re: Possible bug from kernel 2.6.22 and above, 2.6.24-rc4
- Re: Possible bug from kernel 2.6.22 and above, 2.6.24-rc4
- Re: Possible bug from kernel 2.6.22 and above, 2.6.24-rc4
[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]