On Monday 21 May 2007 13:42:01 Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
> > > ouch! a nearly 1 second delay got observed by the scheduler - something
> > > is really killing your system!
> >
> > ah, you got the latency tracer from Thomas, as part of the -hrt patchset
> > - that makes it quite a bit easier to debug. [...]
>
> and ... you already did a trace for Thomas, for the softirq problem:
>
>    http://cybertek.info/taitai/trace.txt.bz2
>
> this trace shows really bad networking related kernel activities!
>
> gkrellm-5977 does this at timestamp 0:
>
>  gkrellm-5977  0..s.    0us : cond_resched_softirq (established_get_next)
>
> 2 milliseconds later it's still in established_get_next() (!):
>
>  gkrellm-5977  0..s. 2001us : cond_resched_softirq (established_get_next)
>
> and the whole thing takes ... 455 msecs:
>
>  gkrellm-5977  0..s. 455443us+: cond_resched_softirq (established_get_next)
>
> i think this suggests that you have tons of open sockets. What does
> "netstat -ts" say on your box?
On 2.6.21.1 doing normal work while seeding few torrents produces this 
with "netstat -ts". I will send you same information for 2.6.22-rc2 after a 
reboot.

Regards
Ananitya

>
> 	Ingo



-- 
Out of many thousands, one may endeavor for perfection, and of
those who have achieved perfection, hardly one knows Me in truth.
				-- Gita Sutra Of Mysticism