Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 17:13:02 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 17:12:53 -0500 Received: from x35.xmailserver.org ([208.129.208.51]:6931 "EHLO x35.xmailserver.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 17:12:44 -0500 Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 14:17:40 -0800 (PST) From: Davide Libenzi X-X-Sender: davide@blue1.dev.mcafeelabs.com To: Matthias Hanisch cc: Mikael Pettersson , Jens Axboe , Linus Torvalds , lkml Subject: Re: 2.5.2-pre performance degradation on an old 486 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 7 Jan 2002, Matthias Hanisch wrote: > On Mon, 7 Jan 2002, Davide Libenzi wrote: > > > In sched.c::init_idle() : > > > > current->dyn_prio = -100; > > > > Let me know. > > Aehm. I already added the same line at the beginning of cpu_idle() in > arch/i386/process.c, which brought back the old performance. Your patch > should be analogous, but cleaner. > > So: Bingo!!!! > > I just wonder, why only two people with slow machines saw this behavior... > > Now 2.5.2 can come :) The problem is that slow machines shows different dyn_prio distribution. What happened was that if a process with dyn_prio == was wake up while the idle was running, preemption_goodness() failed to kick out the idle ( with dyn_prio == 0 ) because of the strict > 0 - Davide - 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/