On Oct 17, 2005, at 11:19 AM, Kevin D. Kissell wrote:
If this can't be explained by a configuration error, we have a real problem here, but if that's the case, I'm surprised no one has raised a red flag earlier.
It has been discussed on other processor architecture lists. It's been hard to justify the move from 2.4 to 2.6 on resource challenged embedded systems, which unfortunately make up the majority of systems running Linux. There are various processor specific modifications (mostly around VM, MMU, and cache management) being attempted to bring the performance level back up to 2.4. If these were back ported to 2.4, I suspect the performance difference would be even greater. Of course, the speed and resources of workstations masks the problems, so most developers don't "feel" the system is any different. There isn't interest in the detailed performance measurements we have to do on embedded systems when we do an upgrade and realize it doesn't meet the performance goals. This is usually just written off with the ".... well, you have new features .." statement, but somehow it doesn't add up. There isn't any magic configuration option or quick fix. You have to take the time to dig into the details of a specific performance issue and then try to optimize anything you can to improve the situation. Thanks. -- Dan
