From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030633AbWAHKXj (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 Jan 2006 05:23:39 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030635AbWAHKXj (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 Jan 2006 05:23:39 -0500 Received: from quechua.inka.de ([193.197.184.2]:20112 "EHLO mail.inka.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030633AbWAHKXj (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 Jan 2006 05:23:39 -0500 From: be-news06@lina.inka.de (Bernd Eckenfels) To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Why is 2.4.32 four times faster than 2.6.14.6?? Organization: Private Site running Debian GNU/Linux In-Reply-To: <20060108095741.GH7142@w.ods.org> X-Newsgroups: ka.lists.linux.kernel User-Agent: tin/1.7.8-20050315 ("Scalpay") (UNIX) (Linux/2.6.13.4 (i686)) Message-Id: Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2006 11:23:37 +0100 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Willy Tarreau wrote: > It's rather strange that 2.6 *eats* CPU apparently doing nothing ! it eats it in high interrupt load. And it is caused by the pty-ssh-tcp output, so most likely those are eepro100 interrupts. Gruss Bernd