On Wed, 2003-10-29 at 17:56, Michel Dänzer wrote: > On Wed, 2003-10-29 at 17:39, Soeren Sonnenburg wrote: > > On Wed, 2003-10-29 at 17:28, Michel Dänzer wrote: > > > On Wed, 2003-10-29 at 09:51, Soeren Sonnenburg wrote: > > > > On Wed, 2003-10-29 at 09:43, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > > > > > > > > > You may be encountering a different issue ... (2.6 is usually overall > > > > > faster than 2.4 here, > > > > > > Same here. Soeren, have you verified the difference actually is related > > > to X, e.g. by redirecting the output to a file? Did you conduct both > > > tests as soon after bootup as possible to minimize the influence of > > > caching? ... > > > > Yes fresh reboot - both this morning. > > A time find ./ >/dev/null says on 2.6. : > > time find >/dev/null > > > > real 4m27.772s > > user 0m0.855s > > sys 0m11.292s > > > > while it seems slower than 2.4 (not yet tested) it does not justify the > > 28minutes to display the files :-/ > > Weird. Maybe this (rather synthetic BTW - it doesn't feel slow doing > 'real' work, does it?) test tickles very bad behaviour in something > which has changed radically in the 2.6 kernel, the scheduler maybe? > CONFIG_PREEMPT might make a difference, pity it causes crashes and all > around weird behaviour about as soon as RAM is fully used.
It is not synthetic. It feels really sluggish in the shell compared to 2.4... Also I have CONFIG_PREEMPT enabled and now I do wonder that I did not yet see a random crash - hmmhhh well except for a try to get cryptoloop working. That was reliably crashing. Should I go for the old radeon driver ?! Soeren
