Re: radeon graphic speed regression 2.4 -> 2.6 test7 benh
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
Reply to: