Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750877AbWAIC6x (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 Jan 2006 21:58:53 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750879AbWAIC6x (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 Jan 2006 21:58:53 -0500 Received: from relay01.mail-hub.dodo.com.au ([203.220.32.149]:52381 "EHLO relay01.mail-hub.dodo.com.au") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750866AbWAIC6x (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 Jan 2006 21:58:53 -0500 From: Grant Coady To: Jesse Brandeburg Cc: Bernd Eckenfels , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Why is 2.4.32 four times faster than 2.6.14.6?? Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2006 13:59:01 +1100 Organization: http://bugsplatter.mine.nu/ Reply-To: gcoady@gmail.com Message-ID: References: <20060108095741.GH7142@w.ods.org> <4807377b0601081837u2c1d50b3w218d5ef9e3dc662@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4807377b0601081837u2c1d50b3w218d5ef9e3dc662@mail.gmail.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 2.0/32.652 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2768 Lines: 72 On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 18:37:52 -0800, Jesse Brandeburg wrote: >On 1/8/06, Grant Coady wrote: >> On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 11:23:37 +0100, be-news06@lina.inka.de (Bernd Eckenfels) wrote: >> >> >Willy Tarreau wrote: >> >> It's rather strange that 2.6 *eats* CPU apparently doing nothing ! >> > >> >it eats it in high interrupt load. And it is caused by the pty-ssh-tcp >> >output, so most likely those are eepro100 interrupts. >> >> That would be true for either 2.4 or 2.6, no? Also it runs e100 >> driver, but... >> >> 2.4 dmesg: >> Intel(R) PRO/100 Network Driver - version 2.3.43-k1 >> Copyright (c) 2004 Intel Corporation >> >> e100: selftest OK. >> e100: eth0: Intel(R) PRO/100 Network Connection >> Hardware receive checksums enabled >> cpu cycle saver enabled >> >> 2.6 dmesg: >> [ 31.977945] e100: Intel(R) PRO/100 Network Driver, 3.4.14-k2-NAPI >> [ 31.978007] e100: Copyright(c) 1999-2005 Intel Corporation >> [ 32.002928] e100: eth0: e100_probe: addr 0xfd201000, irq 11, MAC addr 00:90:27:42:AA:77 >> [ 32.026992] e100: eth1: e100_probe: addr 0xfd200000, irq 12, MAC addr 00:90:27:58:32:D4 >> [ 32.186941] e100: eth0: e100_watchdog: link up, 100Mbps, full-duplex >> >> Are rx checksums not turned on in 2.6' e100 driver? >> CPU is only pentium/mmx 233 > >Hey Grant, to answer your question, checksums are not offloaded with >the current e100 driver but that really shouldn't make that much of a >difference. I'm actually going to go with interrupt load due to e100 >being at least related to the problem. Okay, that may make a difference with a slow CPU. >BTW I get access denied when hitting >http://bugsplatter.mine.nu/test/boxen/deltree/ OMG! Not the red screen? Hmmm, collateral damage ;) Just turned it off, unless you're masquerading as a web crawler :p >The netdev-2.6 git tree currently has a driver that supports microcode >loading for your rev 8 PRO/100 and that microcode may help your >interrupt load due to e100. however, it may already be loading. >Also, what do you have HZ set to? (250 is default in 2.6, 1000 in 2.4) >so you could try running your 2.6 kernel with HZ=1000 Running it with 100Hz, isn't 2.4 == 100Hz? I can try 1000Hz, but not for some hours now, other stuff on. >while you're running your test you could try (if you have sysstat) >sar -I 1 10 > >or a simpler version, 10 loops of cat /proc/interrupts; sleep 1; > >Lets see if its e100, Yes, lets. More later. Cheers, Grant. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/