From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752583Ab0JCDC7 (ORCPT ); Sat, 2 Oct 2010 23:02:59 -0400 Received: from mail-qy0-f181.google.com ([209.85.216.181]:45281 "EHLO mail-qy0-f181.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752484Ab0JCDC6 (ORCPT ); Sat, 2 Oct 2010 23:02:58 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=vfRRQuiEng+cwmYVLOU5KK9+Lx/7KcsAAahY8Nt4hF0PsbVU5jZnyzhLrPB4BU8wV5 IUyxDkoZDzrJaeEl3nlPELKnGbpjgZf1cq9Xi8xKdpRzKQLMr1MV9IKZNxumM953e2RA tx9S3GHtpI+XmuwSNdlIPJAt4MsH2tgaktr7k= Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2010 23:02:54 -0400 From: tmhikaru@gmail.com To: Florian Mickler , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Greg KH , Peter Zijlstra , Chase Douglas , Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: PROBLEM: Unusually high load average when idle in 2.6.35, 2.6.35.1 and later Message-ID: <20101003030254.GA4901@roll> References: <20101001035321.GA2360@roll> <20101001094814.GA5029@roll> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="k1lZvvs/B4yU6o8G" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20101001094814.GA5029@roll> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --k1lZvvs/B4yU6o8G Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline These final tests I think conclusively prove that I've been on a wild goose chase. The load average statistic is indeed broken somehow, and I did bisect it down to where the problem began, however there seems to be no performance problem related to it I can find. Somehow I must have made a mistake I didn't catch when I did the original build that led me to believe on top of the statistic being broken, that it was causing a performance problem. All of the make allnoconfig test results finish within a second of eachother, with four different kernels tested. I think if there really was a performance problem it would have reared its head sometime during the multiple compile tests on different kernels I took. I apologize for wasting everyones time, especially my own :) Anyway, the results: 2.6.35.6: make mrproper && XZ_OPT="" CCACHE_DISABLE="1" time make allnoconfig 5.46user 0.51system 0:07.08elapsed 84%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 95888maxresident)k 0inputs+1920outputs (0major+126585minor)pagefaults 0swaps 2.6.35: make mrproper && XZ_OPT="" CCACHE_DISABLE="1" time make allnoconfig 5.42user 0.50system 0:06.24elapsed 95%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 95888maxresident)k 0inputs+1920outputs (0major+126585minor)pagefaults 0swaps Tim McGrath --k1lZvvs/B4yU6o8G Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iQEVAwUBTKfyXpEncCrqzVruAQJNdgf/aXHKwjE73AVOq1QdQoYzBkvIL+nGfyMb A2l+U5ku+/COyT00ucZmt9EoGkz1UyN5a62mUF96qLZC6k1UHChhJ3+I+55hpFyb cTEzEVmxxJx2RUoTwQQFzrkd+2XMhfo1V8AJdexZsdafD+iladTJyokQirhLYq7B xbOpjIoGLoIMXsBPrsl0cKZJlfitjWQq1sAKAibR22a7Fa2jJ0l37EW1wsTQxvoP 5ANLDFkYoU6UMpM9IyYm91PFPfArMh11DUa33ug8ebg/wYLWsvV/UT3Lmae9JQ5q dI+hexMjj+cPIzSOzQkEOplLue+ANbzZhB6rPYj+Hf9rLa6E+8ugHA== =noy5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --k1lZvvs/B4yU6o8G--