Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750915AbWBHDHT (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Feb 2006 22:07:19 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751115AbWBHDHT (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Feb 2006 22:07:19 -0500 Received: from kanga.kvack.org ([66.96.29.28]:3256 "EHLO kanga.kvack.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750915AbWBHDHS (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Feb 2006 22:07:18 -0500 Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 22:02:34 -0500 From: Benjamin LaHaise To: Grant Coady Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 2.6 vs 2.4, ssh terminal slowdown Message-ID: <20060208030234.GE14748@kvack.org> References: <20060208022411.GD14748@kvack.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1046 Lines: 23 On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 01:50:10PM +1100, Grant Coady wrote: > Vague 'cos I do not know where the problem is. One might say slowdown > is like a near a 1ms delay per line output, but slowdown does not > correlate to kernel tick frequency. :( Two things come to mind: can you try doing a vmstat 1 while running the test and compare 2.4 vs 2.6? Also, does it make a difference if you switch from the e100 driver to eepro100? > I'll take a look at oprofile, report back if I can make sense of it ;) If the CPU is pegged that will guide fixing things quite nicely, but the fact that it's 1ms per line sounds like something more sinister. -ben -- "Ladies and gentlemen, I'm sorry to interrupt, but the police are here and they've asked us to stop the party." Don't Email: . - 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/