From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752944AbWKCCLp (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Nov 2006 21:11:45 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752946AbWKCCLp (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Nov 2006 21:11:45 -0500 Received: from mailout.stusta.mhn.de ([141.84.69.5]:56842 "HELO mailout.stusta.mhn.de") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1752937AbWKCCLo (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Nov 2006 21:11:44 -0500 Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2006 03:11:45 +0100 From: Adrian Bunk To: Tim Chen Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ak@suse.de, discuss@x86-64.org Subject: Re: 2.6.19-rc1: x86_64 slowdown in lmbench's fork Message-ID: <20061103021145.GD13381@stusta.de> References: <1162485897.10806.72.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1162492453.10806.75.camel@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1162492453.10806.75.camel@localhost.localdomain> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 10:34:13AM -0800, Tim Chen wrote: > On Thu, 2006-11-02 at 11:33 -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > > My only partial guess is that it might be worth adding the per cpu > > variables my patch adds without any of the corresponding code changes. > > And see if adding variables to the per cpu area is what is causing the > > change. > > > > The two tests I can see in this line are: > > - to add the percpu vector_irq variable. > > - to increase NR_IRQs. > > Increasing the NR_IRQs resulted in the regression. >... What's your CONFIG_NR_CPUS setting that you are seeing such a big regression? > Tim cu Adrian -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed