From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id p8AIB6ut120675 for ; Sat, 10 Sep 2011 13:11:06 -0500 Received: from mx0a-00082601.pphosted.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 7485714C21E for ; Sat, 10 Sep 2011 11:11:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx0a-00082601.pphosted.com (mx0a-00082601.pphosted.com [67.231.145.42]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id H2KqjbOq4t270XgK for ; Sat, 10 Sep 2011 11:11:04 -0700 (PDT) From: Paul Saab Subject: Re: Performance regression between 2.6.32 and 2.6.38 Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2011 18:10:50 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20110910060522.GA26968@infradead.org> Content-Language: en-US Content-ID: <6F250799357E9F4BA6F92AF018E8C947@fb.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 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: Christoph Hellwig , Joshua Aune Cc: "xfs@oss.sgi.com" On 9/9/11 11:05 PM, "Christoph Hellwig" wrote: >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) 487f84f3 is where the regression was introduced. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs