From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753097Ab2LARLQ (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 Dec 2012 12:11:16 -0500 Received: from mxout2.iskon.hr ([213.191.128.81]:36674 "EHLO mxout2.iskon.hr" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752464Ab2LARLP (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 Dec 2012 12:11:15 -0500 X-Remote-IP: 213.191.128.133 Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2012 18:11:10 +0100 From: Zlatko Calusic Organization: Iskon Internet d.d. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121031 Icedove/16.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tejun Heo CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <50A78AA9.5040904@iskon.hr> <20121130225200.GB6021@htj.dyndns.org> <20121130225545.GC6021@htj.dyndns.org> <50B9E4C1.2050002@iskon.hr> <20121201143852.GA2685@htj.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <20121201143852.GA2685@htj.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <50BA3A2E.9020303@iskon.hr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: High context switch rate, ksoftirqd's chewing cpu X-Anti-Virus: Kaspersky Anti-Virus for Linux Mail Server 5.6.45/RELEASE, bases: 20121201 #8580373, check: 20121201 clean X-SpamTest-Envelope-From: zlatko.calusic@iskon.hr X-SpamTest-Group-ID: 00000000 X-SpamTest-Info: Profiles 39753 [Dec 01 2012] X-SpamTest-Method: none X-SpamTest-Rate: 0 X-SpamTest-SPF: none X-SpamTest-Status: Not detected X-SpamTest-Status-Extended: not_detected X-SpamTest-Version: SMTP-Filter Version 3.0.0 [0284], KAS30/Release Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 01.12.2012 15:38, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, > > On Sat, Dec 01, 2012 at 12:06:41PM +0100, Zlatko Calusic wrote: >> I have good news. The patch fixes the regression! >> >> To doublecheck and provide you additional data, I updated to the latest Linus >> kernel (commit 7c17e48), recompiled (WITHOUT the patch), rebooted and this is >> what vmstat 1 looks like: > > Awesome, can you please test the following patch too? Thanks! > Sure. Please clarify, should I apply it on top of the previous one or standalone? -- Zlatko