From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S272439AbTHEFPV (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Aug 2003 01:15:21 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S272442AbTHEFPV (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Aug 2003 01:15:21 -0400 Received: from holomorphy.com ([66.224.33.161]:6274 "EHLO holomorphy") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S272439AbTHEFPR (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Aug 2003 01:15:17 -0400 Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 22:16:31 -0700 From: William Lee Irwin III To: Martin Konold Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Interactive Usage of 2.6.0.test1 worse than 2.4.21 Message-ID: <20030805051631.GQ32488@holomorphy.com> Mail-Followup-To: William Lee Irwin III , Martin Konold , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <200308050704.22684.martin.konold@erfrakon.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200308050704.22684.martin.konold@erfrakon.de> Organization: The Domain of Holomorphy User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 07:04:22AM +0200, Martin Konold wrote: > when using 2.6.0.test1 on a high end laptop (P-IV 2.2 GHz, 1GB RAM) I notice > very significant slowdown in interactive usage compared to 2.4.21. > The difference is most easily seen when switching folders in kmail. While > 2.4.21 is instantaneous 2.6.0.test1 shows the clock for about 2-3 seconds. > I am using maildir folders on reiserfs. > Can anyone verify this behaviour? > What other information do you need? CPU profiles, e.g. readprofile -n -m /boot/System.map-`uname -r` | sort -rn -k 1,1 | head -25 Also logs of vmstat 1. -- wli