[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20061003084729.GA24961@elte.hu>
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2006 10:47:29 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Jim Gettys <jg@...top.org>,
John Stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 00/21] high resolution timers / dynamic ticks - V2
* Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org> wrote:
> These patches make my Vaio run really really slowly. Maybe a quarter
> of the normal speed or lower. Bisection shows that the bug is
> introduced by
> clockevents-drivers-for-i386.patch+clockevents-drivers-for-i386-fix.patch
>
> With all patches applied, the slowdown happens with
> CONFIG_HIGH_RES_TIMERS=n and also with CONFIG_HIGH_RES_TIMERS=y &&
> CONFIG_NO_HZ=y. So something got collaterally damaged.
yeah, i suspect it works again if you disable:
CONFIG_X86_UP_APIC=y
CONFIG_X86_UP_IOAPIC=y
CONFIG_X86_LOCAL_APIC=y
CONFIG_X86_IO_APIC=y
as the slowdown has the feeling of a runaway lapic timer irq.
from code review so far we can only see an udelay(10) difference in the
initialization sequence of the PIT - we'll send a fix for that but i
dont think that's the cause of the bug.
investigating it.
Ingo
-
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