From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265916AbTLaAuw (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Dec 2003 19:50:52 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265917AbTLaAuw (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Dec 2003 19:50:52 -0500 Received: from [24.35.117.106] ([24.35.117.106]:34944 "EHLO localhost.localdomain") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265916AbTLaAuv (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Dec 2003 19:50:51 -0500 Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 19:50:24 -0500 (EST) From: Thomas Molina X-X-Sender: tmolina@localhost.localdomain To: Linus Torvalds cc: William Lee Irwin III , Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: 2.6.0 performance problems In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <20031230143929.GN27687@holomorphy.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, Linus Torvalds wrote: > Ok. This looks much closer to the 2.4.x numbers you reported: > > real 13m50.198s > user 0m33.780s > sys 0m15.390s > > so I assume that we can consider this problem largely solved? There's > still some difference, that could be due to just VM tuning.. > > I suspect that what happened is: > - slab debugging adds a heavy CPU _and_ it also makes all the slab caches > much less dense. > - as a result, you see much higher system times, and you also end up > needing much more memory for things like the dentry cache, so your > memory-starved machine ended up swapping a lot more too. So you are telling me that I am paying the price for running development kernels and enabling all the debugging. I enjoy running the development stuff and testing new stuff. I enabled all the kernel hacking and debugging options with the idea it might be useful for testing purposes. Disabling all the debugging stuff brings the numbers down, but things still "feel" worse. It's subjective, but there you are. I'll continue to test with whatever provides the most useful data.