Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1762664AbXE2RYY (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 May 2007 13:24:24 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1759790AbXE2RYF (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 May 2007 13:24:05 -0400 Received: from daemonizer.de ([87.230.16.230]:49367 "EHLO daemonizer.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1760313AbXE2RYB (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 May 2007 13:24:01 -0400 From: Maximilian Engelhardt To: "Gary Zambrano" Subject: Re: b44: regression in 2.6.22 (resend) Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 19:23:22 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.7 Cc: "Thomas Gleixner" , "Michael Buesch" , "linux-kernel" , "linux-wireless" , "Stephen Hemminger" , "Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo" , "Jeff Garzik" , netdev@vger.kernel.org, "Andrew Morton" References: <20070525172431.60affaca@freepuppy> <200705282255.56490.maxi@daemonizer.de> <1180447123.17146.4.camel@dhcp-10-12-136-115.broadcom.com> In-Reply-To: <1180447123.17146.4.camel@dhcp-10-12-136-115.broadcom.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart4060505.77Nsh39oUo"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200705291923.26438.maxi@daemonizer.de> X-Spam-Score: -4.1 (----) X-Spam-Report: No, hits=-4.1 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.1.7-deb * -1.8 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP * -2.6 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0000] * 0.3 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3393 Lines: 96 --nextPart4060505.77Nsh39oUo Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Tuesday 29 May 2007, Gary Zambrano wrote: > On Mon, 2007-05-28 at 13:55 -0700, Maximilian Engelhardt wrote: > > On Monday 28 May 2007, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > On Mon, 2007-05-28 at 19:44 +0200, Maximilian Engelhardt wrote: > > > > > Can you please keep CONFIG_HIGH_RES_TIMERS and CONFIG_NOHZ and try > > > > > the following combinations on the kernel command line: > > > > > > > > > > 1) highres=3Doff nohz=3Doff (should be the same as your working c= onfig) > > > > > 2) highres=3Doff > > > > > 3) nohz=3Doff > > > > > > > > I tested this with my 2.6.22-rc3 kernel, here are the results: > > > > > > > > without any special boot parameters: problem does appear > > > > highres=3Doff nohz=3Doff: problem does not appear > > > > highres=3Doff: problem does not appear > > > > nohz=3Doff: problem does appear > > > > > > Is there any other strange behavior of the high res enabled kernel th= an > > > the b44 problem ? > > > > I didn't notice anything. > > > > > > I additionally built my 2.6.22-rc2-mm1 kernel without High Resoluti= on > > > > Timer, but the high ping problem is still there. > > > > > > Hmm, that's mysterious. Wild guess is that highres exposes the hidden > > > "feature" in a different way than rc2-mm1 does. > > > > I think the bug in 2.6.21/22-rc3 is a different one that the one in > > 2.6.22-rc2-mm1, but that's also only a wild guess :) > > > > I'll explain this a bit: > > In 2.6.21/22-rc3 is the same b44 driver that has been in the stock > > kernels for some time. With this driver and High Resolution Timer turned > > on I get problems using iperf. The problems are that the systems becomes > > really slow and unresponsive. Michael Buesch thought this could be an > > IRQ storm which sounds logical to me. This bug did never happen to me > > before I startet the iperf test. > > Can you please check to see if you notice anything out of the ordinary > using netperf in place of iperf in your high res timer on/off testbed? ok, here are the results, I also had a look at the cpu kernel usage. 'good' means that the kernel responsiveness during the test was as I would= =20 expect it and I didn't notice any problems. highres enabled: netperf: 80%sy 15%si (good) iperf: not really messureable (bad, problem described above) highres disabled: netperf: 80%sy 15%si (good) iperf: 5%sy 30%hi 15%si (good) for test tests I did run the following commands: netperf -l 60 192.168.1.1 iperf -c 192.168.1.1 -r -t 60 I also tried to run iperf without any additional arguments (iperf -c=20 192.168.1.1) on the problematic kernel but the result is the same as the=20 command I wrote above. Maxi --nextPart4060505.77Nsh39oUo Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBGXGGOOimwv528XGERAsw/AJ4m3Q0hahe28KIFZwtueQqHyE0kagCePF// 6jyHP5GW0uXcLTRFci3rXoU= =8pPH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart4060505.77Nsh39oUo-- - 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/