Re: 2.6.12-rc2-mm1

Barry K. Nathan
2005-04-07T06:55:23Z

On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 08:06:14PM -0700, Barry K. Nathan wrote:
> > > BTW, there's another strange thing that's introduced by 2.6.11-rc2-mm1:
> > > With that kernel, suspend is also ridiculously slow (speed is comparable
> > > to the slow resume with the aforementioned patch). 2.6.11-rc2 does not
> > > have that problem.
> >
> > Does reverting swsusp-enable-resume-from-initrd.patch fix this also?
>
> No. Reverting it from 2.6.12-rc2-mm1 (oops, I got the version number
> wrong in my previous mail -- and that should also be 2.6.12-rc2 not
> 2.6.11-rc2) speeds up resume to the original speed, but suspend is still
> ridiculously slow. Time to narrow things down again, I presume...
>
> > > Also, with 2.6.12-rc2-mm1, this computer happens to hit the bug where
> > > all the printk timestamps are 0000000.0000000 (don't take the # of
> > > digits too literally). Probably unrelated, but I may as well mention it.
> > > (System is an Athlon XP 2200+ with SiS chipset. I can't remember which
> > > model of SiS chipset.)
> >
> > Yes, sorry. Reverting
> > http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.12-rc2/2.6.12-rc2-mm1/broken-out/sched-x86-sched_clock-to-use-tsc-on-config_hpet-or-config_numa-systems.patch
> > will fix that one.

Reverting
sched-x86-sched_clock-to-use-tsc-on-config_hpet-or-config_numa-systems.patch
fixed both the printk timestamps and the slow suspend. And it also fixed
a **major** interactivity problem (running kernel compiles made X almost
unusably slow) which I discovered since sending the previous e-mail. So,
something about this patch is seriously evil.

-Barry K. Nathan <barryn@pobox.com>