From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753385Ab0IVJmq (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Sep 2010 05:42:46 -0400 Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([213.165.64.22]:41891 "HELO mail.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1752289Ab0IVJmp (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Sep 2010 05:42:45 -0400 X-Authenticated: #8143315 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/6WusWzt76nrEVLvkYnh2fsxDCnravSI2eZPGR9s 2VmaIXLxn4L2CQ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; delsp=yes To: "Andrew Morton" , "Greg KH" Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, stable@kernel.org Subject: Re: [stable] regression in 2.6.35.4 'load is to heavy (video subsystem?)' References: <20100921165007.6200846f.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20100922000101.GA5077@kroah.com> Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 11:42:41 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit FROM: Karsten Mehrhoff Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20100922000101.GA5077@kroah.com> User-Agent: Opera Mail/10.70 (Linux) X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org [Am 22.09.2010, 02:01 Uhr, schrieb Greg KH ] > On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 04:50:07PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: >> On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 10:02:36 +0200 >> Karsten Mehrhoff wrote: >> >>> Using the same .config from 2.6.35.3 to compile 2.5.36.4 results in a >>> heavy load with 2.6.35.4. >> >> A regression within -stable is rather bad. > > Agreed. > >>> Example: >>> >>> Difference between 2.6.35.1/2/3 and 2.6.35.4 while watching some >> videos: >>> 2.6.35.4 switches the cpu for flash videos in the browser (opera or >>> iceweasel) or other video outputs to 2200/2400/2600 MHz meanwhile >> 2.6.35.3 >>> (or older) stays at 1000 Mhz. That results in a higher cpu >> temperature, >>> more power consumption and so one. >>> >>> Using other GUI program results in nearly the same problems with >> 2.6.35.4, >>> so this kernel is unusable for me. >>> >>> Results to see the difference for the same action >>> 2.6.35.4 >>> Core0 Temp: +45.0__C >>> Core1 Temp: +43.0__C >>> cpu MHz: 2200.000 or higher >>> >>> 2.6.35.3 >>> Core0 Temp: +32.0__C >>> Core1 Temp: +31.0__C >>> cpu MHz: 1000.000 (max. 1800, but falling back to 1000) > > Can you run 'git bisect' between 2.6.35.3 and 2.6.35.4 to try to find > out the offending patch that caused this issue? > > thanks, > > greg k-h Same for 2.6.35.5 using 256.53 For your info, I did run some tests today using a nVidia 9500GT Kernel | Performance with NVIDIA-Linux-x86_64- | 256.53 | 260.19.04 (BETA) ---------------------------------------------------------- 2.6.35.3 | good | good ---------------------------------------------------------- 2.6.35.4 | bad | not tested ---------------------------------------------------------- 2.6.35.5 | bad | ~ good ---------------------------------------------------------- 2.6.36-rc4 | | (git1-5) | failed | good ---------------------------------------------------------- 2.6.36-rc4 | | (git1) | failed | good ---------------------------------------------------------- Karsten