Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: irqpoll kernel option hurts performance? | From | Alan Cox <> | Date | Fri, 03 Nov 2006 16:00:58 +0000 |
| |
Ar Gwe, 2006-11-03 am 07:10 -0800, ysgrifennodd xp newbie: > Thank you, Alan. Indeed, it is a desktop machine so I > guess I should not be too concerned. I should note > hoever that while downloading an ISO image from the > Internet and doing nothing else (not even moving the > mouse), the System Monitor showed CPU usage of 15%. > The same machine booting to Windows 2000, shows in > such circumstances 0% CPU use (something lesser than > 1% to be more exact).
The two systems don't measure performance the same way. That makes comparisons using their own monitoring tools a bit dubious and can make either OS look better in cases where it isn't
> But that board, again, was running Windows 2000 > without any performance sacrifices... How does Windows > achieve that trick?
I wish I knew. One possibility - especially as this appears to be the USB 2.0 is that it provides different rules for different OS's (thats intended to be a feature so it can hide EHCI from old windows etc)
You might want to see if booting with the kernel option "acpi_noirq" has any effect for the better, you can also spoof different versions of windows for ACPI using
acpi_os_name="Microsoft Windows"
(Not sure how you spoof XP etc offhand but it should be documented somewhere)
Various things are going on to improve the poor state of PC BIOSes including a firmware test kit from Intel.
> I know that there is an issue with Promise > controllers, as Promise releases only binaries of its > drivers for Linux, not the source code. :(
Actually promise are generally providing both docs and their own binary driver.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |