On Tue, 2009-04-28 at 12:57 -0400, Chuck Ebbert wrote: > On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 09:02:40 +0200 > Andi Kleen <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > "Styner, Douglas W" <douglas.w.styner@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > > > > > ======oprofile 0.9.3 CPU_CLK_UNHALTED for top 30 functions > > > Cycles% 2.6.24.2 Cycles% 2.6.30-rc2 > > > 74.8578 <database> 67.6966 <database> > > > > The dip in database cycles is indeed worrying. > > > > > 1.0500 qla24xx_start_scsi 1.1724 qla24xx_start_scsi > > > 0.8089 schedule 1.0578 qla24xx_intr_handler > > > 0.5864 kmem_cache_alloc 0.8259 __schedule > > > 0.4989 __blockdev_direct_IO 0.7451 kmem_cache_alloc > > > 0.4357 __sigsetjmp 0.4872 __blockdev_direct_IO > > > 0.4152 copy_user_generic_string 0.4390 task_rq_lock > > > 0.3953 qla24xx_intr_handler 0.4338 __sigsetjmp > > > > And also why the qla24xx_intr_handler became ~2.5x as expensive. > > Cc linux-scsi and qla24xx maintainers. > > > > They are getting 31000 interrupts/sec vs. 22000/sec on older kernels. Should be fixed by: http://marc.info/?l=linux-scsi&m=124093712114937 If someone could verify, I'd be grateful. Thanks, James -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
