linux-kernel - Re: Serious performance regression in Wine applications and Linux 2.6.24.*

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1218121536.20866.1267493005@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Date:	Thu, 07 Aug 2008 08:05:36 -0700
From:	"Kai" <epimetreus@...tmail.fm>
To:	"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	"Ray Lee" <ray-lk@...rabbit.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"Peter Zijlstra" <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	"Mike Galbraith" <efault@....de>
Subject: Re: Serious performance regression in Wine applications and Linux      
 2.6.24.*

Some stuff came up and I was unable to focus on this bug for a while,
but it's gone as of 2.6.26. Performance is comparable to 2.6.23 once
again, maybe a bit better in places.

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 17:53:42 +0200, "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu> said:
> 
> * Kai <epimetreus@...tmail.fm> wrote:
> 
> > I did, however, test it on 2.6.25-rc8, and attached is the output of 
> > cfs-debug-info.sh
> 
> your vmstat:
> 
> -- vmstat: 
> --procs -----------memory---------- ---swap-- -----io---- -system--
> ----cpu----
>  r  b   swpd   free   buff  cache   si   so    bi    bo   in   cs us sy
>  id wa
>  3  0      0 870540    340 746184    0    0   952   137  198 4752 21 12
>  60  7
>  1  0      0 870952    340 746320    0    0   128     0  356 17723 28 23
>  50  0
>  1  0      0 872224    340 746320    0    0     0    21  394 18066 30 20
>  50  0
>  1  0      0 872244    340 746320    0    0     0     0  353 17987 29 22
>  50  0
>  1  0      0 871416    340 746320    0    0     0     0  392 17971 28 22
>  50  0
> 
> suggests that there's a constant 50% idle time. Probably one core 
> running X and the client, the other core staying idle?
> 
> 	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/