On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 15:46 -0400, Dave Jones wrote: > On Fri, Sep 09, 2011 at 12:07:48PM -0500, Mike Chambers wrote: > > > Below are 4 kernels that I have tested to see what works ok and what > > don't. The 2 3.0 kernels both were extremely slow, and the 2 2.6.40 > > kernels were both faster and more responsive. Using the latest 2.6.40 > > does still have X use up some CPU but haven't seen it get past 25% > > compared to the 3.0 kernels both seem to go up past 50% ore more. > > > > Seems whatever is the difference in the kernels (diff in how built?), or > > whatever the difference in what they are built against might be the > > issue, or a combination thereof. Figure that out and might be onto > > something. Maybe others can try same thing and see what they get. > > > > [mike@scrappy ~]$ rpm -q kernel > > > > kernel-2.6.40.3-0.fc15.x86_64 > > kernel-3.1.0-0.rc4.git0.0.fc16.x86_64 > > kernel-3.0.1-5.fc16.x86_64 > > kernel-2.6.40.4-5.fc15.x86_64 > > you can turn off some of the heavier weight debugging by booting > the 3.0 kernels with "slub_debug=-" > (In the 2.6.40 builds, this is only on in the -debug flavor) > > Debugging options are going to be turned off for the next builds > in time for the beta. Was debugging on in 3.0.1-3 ? For me, that kernel performs (graphically) significantly better than any 3.1 kernel. I haven't tried 3.0.1-5 yet. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
