lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1998]   [Sep]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: slowdown 2.0.35 vs 2.1.121 (pre 1)
From
Date
Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@e-mind.com> writes:

> Could you try this patch against your latest proggy?
>
> --- /home/andrea/devel/suck-cpu2.c Thu Sep 10 20:44:48 1998
> +++ suck-cpu2.c Tue Sep 15 14:53:42 1998
> @@ -260,6 +260,7 @@
> */
>
> action.sa_handler = (void (*)(int))interrupt_routine;
> + action.sa_flags = SA_RESTART;
> timer.it_interval.tv_usec = (long int) (period*1000000.0);
> timer.it_interval.tv_sec = 0;
> timer.it_value.tv_usec = (long int) (period*1000000.0);

I tried it, but it did not change the results unfortunately. I just
ran the test (prog1) with kernel 2.1.120 with you patch profiling
patch. So I have a few traces: one with the "unaltered" system and 3
with the "altered" system.

Do you want me to email you directly the results or put them
somewhere ?

Regards,

Claude

P.S.: your patch works well with 2.1.120 SMP.

--
Claude Gamache, CAE Electronique Ltee, 8585 Cote-de-Liesse
Saint-Laurent, Quebec, Canada H4T 1G6
Email: cgamache@cae.ca Tel.: (514) 341-2000 x3194

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:44    [W:0.043 / U:0.432 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site