From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754205Ab0JCRKV (ORCPT ); Sun, 3 Oct 2010 13:10:21 -0400 Received: from mail-qw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.216.46]:33016 "EHLO mail-qw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754104Ab0JCRKU (ORCPT ); Sun, 3 Oct 2010 13:10:20 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=naP8DXaPRYosVkkk3c3KkI0/9L0WtkdYwm1qQyiEgkPABsrOgvX4/Tx5zhffLFgcEM I47Xkb8PWMm2KiOBTZF1RulyHrhdsrPgobFEL1XB3skkcp639kH47d3q56bkqvnHhUgS fGEiCSn6fmFFwS619rNRB2T23slsNu6wp5uT0= Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2010 13:10:15 -0400 From: tmhikaru@gmail.com To: Florian Mickler Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Greg KH , 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: <20101003170912.GA18972@roll> References: <20101001035321.GA2360@roll> <20101001094814.GA5029@roll> <20101003030254.GA4901@roll> <20101003122143.69cd3b9a@schatten.dmk.lab> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="/NkBOFFp2J2Af1nK" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20101003122143.69cd3b9a@schatten.dmk.lab> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --/NkBOFFp2J2Af1nK Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Oct 03, 2010 at 12:21:43PM +0200, Florian Mickler wrote: > Don't apologize, it's heroic. Do you still see the performance > regression you reported in your original bug report? I don't exactly > know if you are at the moment just talking about the bisected commit or > if the performance regression you saw earlier was just some cosmic ray > kind of thing... >=20 > If the load-average thing was just a red herring, it would probably > still be worthwile to bisect the performance regression. No, I do not see the performance regression anymore, which is why I did all that extra testing with the timed compiles - it proves that somewhere along the line I made a mistake, and tricked myself into believing the load average glitch *also* was causing performance issues. I was wrong. Given I only started digging into the problem as far as I did because I thought it was slowing things down, it's annoying. However, at least I did find a real problem. Tim McGrath --/NkBOFFp2J2Af1nK Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iQEVAwUBTKi495EncCrqzVruAQLt+Af/aUe4/z7UvWVGvOXcR9o37QyjfNMb6iXf zJrIp7+xY/dJsOS0SvR4r+/c310boekJtnRX66NwMH6hKAeGa/D2dqoLGoptiYeR oNxw6G+31IiGQZVeieEyCHz/1pO7rCYTC6x5kfJI2hFUjBu4FXVxUZzHBDU+9uGM gI5CX08X4uTSPwJzfmrFhNzL7m7ZPYeXwNRLu8HIRukGVG7ki06SL38U3nzgqP7t oP6tnBP9l0u8/aPo81niTV9OoNeWol6CUb1fXZVfvSiEcKl8DqEmB8XT4n5w7YIa 2YKV7lK6rgD0TgFb0TrjmsLiWKjEJY9PZegmJJApsUHU8oUdl93Mpw== =zCQB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --/NkBOFFp2J2Af1nK--