On Wed, 2008-01-16 at 08:34 +0800, Zhang, Yanmin wrote: > On Mon, 2008-01-14 at 21:53 +1100, Herbert Xu wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 14, 2008 at 08:44:40AM +0000, Ilpo Jrvinen wrote: > > > > > > > > I tried to use bisect to locate the bad patch between 2.6.22 and > > > > > 2.6.23-rc1, > > > > > but the bisected kernel wasn't stable and went crazy. > > > > > > TCP work between that is very much non-existing. > > > > Make sure you haven't switched between SLAB/SLUB while testing this. > I can make sure. In addition, I tried both SLAB and SLUB and make sure the > regression is still there if CONFIG_SLAB=y. I retried bisect between 2.6.22 and 2.6.23-rc1. This time, I enabled CONFIG_SLAB=y, and deleted the warmup procedure in the testing scripts. In addition, bind the 2 processes on the same logical processor. The regression is about 20% which is larger than the one when binding 2 processes to different core.
The new bisect reported cfs core patch causes it. The results of every step look stable. dd41f596cda0d7d6e4a8b139ffdfabcefdd46528 is first bad commit commit dd41f596cda0d7d6e4a8b139ffdfabcefdd46528 Author: Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon Jul 9 18:51:59 2007 +0200 sched: cfs core code apply the CFS core code. this change switches over the scheduler core to CFS's modular design and makes use of kernel/sched_fair/rt/idletask.c to implement Linux's scheduling policies. thanks to Andrew Morton and Thomas Gleixner for lots of detailed review feedback and for fixlets. Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Signed-off-by: Mike Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Adamushko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Signed-off-by: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -yanmin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html