[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20060918210849.GA31746@tentacle.sectorb.msk.ru>
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 01:08:49 +0400
From: "Vladimir B. Savkin" <master@...torb.msk.ru>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
Cc: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...u.dk>,
Harry Edmon <harry@...os.washington.edu>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
Subject: Re: Network performance degradation from 2.6.11.12 to 2.6.16.20
On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 01:27:57PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> The codebase for timing (and lots of other things) is quite different
> between 32bit and 64bit. You're really surprised it doesn't work if you do such things?
>
It works, and after your remark above, I'm surprised.
Dunno about slow TSC drift though, there was not enough time passed to
detect it, and I hope we will have this problem soved in a better way
before the drift becomes visible :)
> > But the question is, why stock 2.6.18-rc7 could not use TSC on its own?
>
> x86-64 doesn't use the TSC when it deems it to not be reliable, which
> is the case on your system.
>
Could it at least print something so that I know that using TSC was
considered, but rejected?
> > What hardware exactly. Doesn't it affect only CPU? And they are not
> > know to fail before any other components.
>
> All hardware. It's basic physics.
Hm, what other hardware is affected by idle=poll? Does this option ear
out HDDs?
~
:wq
With best regards,
Vladimir Savkin.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists