On Mon, 2008-01-14 at 11:21 +0200, Ilpo J�rvinen wrote: > On Mon, 14 Jan 2008, Ilpo J�rvinen wrote: > > > On Fri, 11 Jan 2008, Zhang, Yanmin wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 17:35 +0800, Zhang, Yanmin wrote: > > > > > > > > As a matter of fact, 2.6.23 has about 6% regression and 2.6.24-rc's > > > > regression is between 16%~11%. > > > > > > > > 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. > > I _really_ meant 2.6.22 - 2.6.23-rc1, not 2.6.24-rc1 in case you had a > typo I did bisect 2.6.22 - 2.6.23-rc1. I also tested it on the latest 2.6.24-rc.
> there which is not that uncommon while typing kernel versions... :-) Thanks. I will retry bisect and bind the server/client to the same logical processor, where I hope the result is stable this time when bisecting. Manual testing showed there is still same or more regression if I bind the processes on the same cpu. Thanks a lot! -yanmin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
