From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932719AbYDVC7Q (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Apr 2008 22:59:16 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1758232AbYDVC67 (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Apr 2008 22:58:59 -0400 Received: from out1.smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.25]:59363 "EHLO out1.smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758229AbYDVC66 (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Apr 2008 22:58:58 -0400 Message-Id: <1208833137.1366.1249155597@webmail.messagingengine.com> X-Sasl-Enc: 4SNSoXDNymMQmLoPylu89wRFL6uG32RdHLD7HgurpI00 1208833137 From: "Kai" To: "Ingo Molnar" Cc: "Ray Lee" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Peter Zijlstra" , "Mike Galbraith" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface References: <1206310206.17373.1243881033@webmail.messagingengine.com> <2c0942db0803231522w7c66f168xf7fea72d135ba395@mail.gmail.com> <1206341873.32060.1243929851@webmail.messagingengine.com> <20080327091711.GD30918@elte.hu> <1207250856.9779.1245934881@webmail.messagingengine.com> <20080421155339.GC31716@elte.hu> Subject: Re: Serious performance regression in Wine applications and Linux 2.6.24.* In-Reply-To: <20080421155339.GC31716@elte.hu> Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 19:58:57 -0700 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org That is possible; I will see if I'm only using one core in 2.6.23 as well; if not, that might suggest what our problem is. On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 17:53:42 +0200, "Ingo Molnar" said: > > * Kai wrote: > > > I did, however, test it on 2.6.25-rc8, and attached is the output of > > cfs-debug-info.sh > > your vmstat: > > -- vmstat: > --procs -----------memory---------- ---swap-- -----io---- -system-- > ----cpu---- > r b swpd free buff cache si so bi bo in cs us sy > id wa > 3 0 0 870540 340 746184 0 0 952 137 198 4752 21 12 > 60 7 > 1 0 0 870952 340 746320 0 0 128 0 356 17723 28 23 > 50 0 > 1 0 0 872224 340 746320 0 0 0 21 394 18066 30 20 > 50 0 > 1 0 0 872244 340 746320 0 0 0 0 353 17987 29 22 > 50 0 > 1 0 0 871416 340 746320 0 0 0 0 392 17971 28 22 > 50 0 > > suggests that there's a constant 50% idle time. Probably one core > running X and the client, the other core staying idle? > > Ingo