From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262548AbTFBQBF (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Jun 2003 12:01:05 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262543AbTFBQBF (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Jun 2003 12:01:05 -0400 Received: from pop03.sprintmail.com ([207.217.120.173]:32462 "EHLO goose.mail.pas.earthlink.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262548AbTFBQBD (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Jun 2003 12:01:03 -0400 Subject: Re: Strange load issues with 2.5.69/70 in both -mm and -bk trees. From: Tom Sightler To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Mike Galbraith , Andrew Morton , LKML In-Reply-To: <1054564236.4190.15.camel@iso-8590-lx.zeusinc.com> References: <1054564236.4190.15.camel@iso-8590-lx.zeusinc.com> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Message-Id: <1054567498.3545.18.camel@iso-8590-lx.zeusinc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 (1.2.2-5) Date: 02 Jun 2003 11:24:59 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-3.4, required 10, AWL, EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION, IN_REP_TO, REFERENCES, SPAM_PHRASE_00_01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2003-06-02 at 10:30, Tom Sightler wrote: > I'm almost positive that wine doesn't consume that much CPU under 2.4, > but I'm off to run some tests to prove or disprove that right now. Well, I'm going to have to eat these words. The problem with wine does seem to show up with 2.4 as well, although not as bad, and seems slightly harder to trigger. That www.disney.com page does indeed show the problem on both 2.4 and 2.5 kernels. I'm not sure why it's worse under 2.5 though, I still wonder if maybe it's because it's getting a priority boost, it almost seems it should get a penalty for being a CPU hog as Ingo pointed out. I can easily fix this in userspace so maybe this is a non-issue. If so, I apologize for bringing it to the list. The only other case that is obviously worse under 2.5 than with 2.4 is VMware 4 (interestingly, VMware 3.2 seems exactly the opposite) however, I believe that this may indeed be related more to the HZ change than scheduling. I'm doing more testing on that now. Later, Tom