From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id p8A65Rkb082765 for ; Sat, 10 Sep 2011 01:05:29 -0500 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id A549B13DC6DD for ; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 23:09:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (173-166-109-252-newengland.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [173.166.109.252]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id UpNQRG6BHaXTfsCq for ; Fri, 09 Sep 2011 23:09:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2011 02:05:23 -0400 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: Performance regression between 2.6.32 and 2.6.38 Message-ID: <20110910060522.GA26968@infradead.org> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Joshua Aune Cc: Paul Saab , "xfs@oss.sgi.com" On Fri, Sep 09, 2011 at 06:23:54PM -0600, Joshua Aune wrote: > Are there any mount options or other tests that can be run in the failing configuration that would be helpful to isolate this further? The best thing would be to bisect it down to at least a kernel release, and if possible to a -rc or individual change (the latter might start to get hard due to various instabilities in early -rc kernels) _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs