[lkml]   [2003]   [Mar]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: anticipatory scheduling questions
"Felipe Alfaro Solana" <> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> > > It wasn't a typo... In fact, both deadline and AS give roughly the same
> > > timings (one second up or down). But I
> > > still don't understand why 2.5 is performing so much worse than 2.4.
> >
> > Me either. It's a bug.
> >
> > Does basic 2.5.63 do the same thing? Do you have a feel for when it started
> > happening?
> This has happened since the moment I switched from 2.4 to 2.5.63-mm1.

You have not actually said whether 2.5.63 base exhibits the same problem.
From the vmstat traces it appears that the answer is "yes"?

> > > Could a "vmstat" or "iostat" dump be interesting?
> > 2.4 versus 2.5 would be interesting, yes.
> I have retested this with 2.4.20-2.54, 2.5.63 and 2.5.63-mm1...
> and have attached the files to this message

Thanks. Note how 2.4 is consuming a few percent CPU, whereas 2.5 is
consuming 100%. Approximately half of it system time.

It does appear that some change in 2.5 has caused evolution to go berserk
during this operation.

> (I think pasting them
> here would result in wrapping, making it harder to read).
> If you need more testing or benchmarking, ask for it :-)

Thanks for your patience.

The next step please is:

a) run top during the operation, work out which process is chewing all
that CPU. Presumably it will be evolution or aspell

b) Do it again and this time run

strace -p $(pidof evolution) # or aspell

This will tell us what it is up to.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:33    [W:0.060 / U:2.380 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site