From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263666AbTL3B0G (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Dec 2003 20:26:06 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263800AbTL3B0F (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Dec 2003 20:26:05 -0500 Received: from mail5.bluewin.ch ([195.186.1.207]:18098 "EHLO mail5.bluewin.ch") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263666AbTL3B0C (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Dec 2003 20:26:02 -0500 Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 02:25:52 +0100 From: Roger Luethi To: Thomas Molina Cc: Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: 2.6.0 performance problems Message-ID: <20031230012551.GA6226@k3.hellgate.ch> Mail-Followup-To: Thomas Molina , Kernel Mailing List References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Operating-System: Linux 2.6.0-test11 on i686 X-GPG-Fingerprint: 92 F4 DC 20 57 46 7B 95 24 4E 9E E7 5A 54 DC 1B X-GPG: 1024/80E744BD wwwkeys.ch.pgp.net User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 17:07:46 -0500, Thomas Molina wrote: > Execution time for the test was: > real 13m33.482s > user 0m33.540s > sys 0m16.210s > > > Under 2.6 top shows: > user nice system irq softirq iowait idle > 0.9 0 5.3 0.9 0.3 92.6 0 > > Execution time for the test was: > real 22m42.397s > user 0m37.753s > sys 0m54.043s > > I've done no performance tweaking in either case. Both tests were done > immediately after boot up with only the top program running in each case. > I'm not sure what other data would be relevant here. Any thoughts from > the group would be appreciated. I bet this is just yet another instance of a problem we've been discussing on lkml and linux-mm for several months now (although Linus asking for DMA presumably means it's not as well known as I thought it was). Basically, when you need to resort to paging for getting work done on 2.6 you're screwed. Your bk export takes a lot more memory than you have RAM in your machine, right? Check the archives for this thread: 2.6.0-test9 - poor swap performance on low end machines Roger