Re: Sleep problems in kernel 2.6 from mvista.com
- To: Soeren Sonnenburg <email@example.com>
- Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
- Subject: Re: Sleep problems in kernel 2.6 from mvista.com
- From: Michel Dänzer <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2003 14:40:52 +0100
- Message-id: <email@example.com>
- In-reply-to: <1070577526.11268.7.camel@localhost>
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <1070254461.1466.100.camel@gaston> <email@example.com> <1070318316.683.124.camel@gaston> <1070367223.2597.11.camel@localhost> <1070403631.21175.72.camel@gaston> <1070433019.3401.113.camel@localhost> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <1070577526.11268.7.camel@localhost>
On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 23:38, Soeren Sonnenburg wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 18:46, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > On Wed, 2003-12-03 at 07:30, Soeren Sonnenburg wrote:
> > >
> > > [...] I find that it might be some scheduling problem and not the
> > > radeonfb:
> > >
> > > When I start find /home for the first time it scrolls slowly. When I do
> > > it a second time it is still slow. But when I did it a third time it is
> > > superb fast (only 45sec vs some minutes / approx the same in xterm)...
> > >
> > > When I do it now it seems to accelerate... it starts slow but becomes
> > > much faster...
> > I think I know what you mean now; scrolling or deleting lines in vim is
> > very slow most of the time here now, but not always. Could indeed be a
> > scheduler problem, or either gnome-terminal (you're using that as well,
> > right?) or the X server doing something stupid which happened to have
> no. I am using multi-gnome-terminal. I strongly dislike gnome-terminal (
> a nice thing is that it has no probs with locales/ can use utf-8
> though). It also happens in xterm. Scrolling speed in xterm/mgt is
> comparable... gt is much slower...
Out of curiosity, did you try gnome-terminal with an anti-aliased font?
That would be expected to be slower.
As it happens with several apps, my money is on the kernel scheduler. I
wonder if it could be related to the fact that HZ is 1000 now?
> What I find interesting is that the system (not cpu!) load is maxxed to
> 100% all the time when scrolling in 2.6. but less than 50% in 2.4....
That's why it's slow I guess; CPU cycles are wasted for something.
> Sounds like the some kernel driver eating up the time... which I thought
> could be due to the new radeonfb driver....
It can't be because it's not involved in the X server drawing.
Earthling Michel Dänzer | Debian (powerpc), X and DRI developer
Software libre enthusiast | http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=daenzer