[gentoo-user] 2.6.13 is 10x slower than 2.6.12!

[gentoo-user] 2.6.13 is 10x slower than 2.6.12!

[Iain Buchanan]

I just compiled 2.6.13-gentoo-r2 with mostly the same options as
2.6.12-gentoo-r7 (my reference point).  The first time I booted, it took
about 10-15 minutes on my 3GHz P4 laptop!  I watched the gdm background
slowly display over about 30 seconds.

I thought it might have something to do with the new default timer
frequency, which I set to 250Hz instead of 1000Hz (which is the default
for pre 2.6.13 kernels).  According to various online sites, 250Hz
should still be just as usable, and may even use less power, increasing
my battery performance...

So I changed the timer frequency back to 1000Hz, recompiled and now it
seems a little faster, but no where near 2.6.12.  It now boots in maybe
5 minutes, and the gdm theme takes about 5s to display.

glxgears (not maximised) gives me about 30 fps with a radeon 9700!

I checked the frequency governor, and the default is still
'performance'.  /proc/acpi/processor/CPU0/throttling shows the maximum
frequency is active as per normal.

Other kernel options I changed are:
- support for software suspend added (could this be it? I definitely saw
the message that no valid suspend was found in my swapfile,
and /proc/swaps shows that I have swap enabled as per usual)
- removed unnecessary SCSI drivers (I don't have anything SCSI)
- removed SATA support (I definitely don't have SATA)

Info:
Dell Ispiron 9100, 3 GHz HT Pentium 4
2.6.12 and 2.6.13: SMP support for 2 processors included

I've seen 1 post online about the same thing - slow running 2.6.13, so
surely there must be some people in the world running it ok!  Any help
on this would be appreciated.

TIA,

-- 
Iain Buchanan <iaindb@netspace.net.au>

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] 2.6.13 is 10x slower than 2.6.12!

[Mark Knecht]

On 9/26/05, Iain Buchanan <iaindb@netspace.net.au> wrote:
> I just compiled 2.6.13-gentoo-r2 with mostly the same options as
> 2.6.12-gentoo-r7 (my reference point).  The first time I booted, it took
> about 10-15 minutes on my 3GHz P4 laptop!  I watched the gdm background
> slowly display over about 30 seconds.
>
>

Hi,
   Cannot be a generic problem. I'm running 2.6.13-gentoo-r2 on both
my 32-bit and 64-bit machines. Seems pretty much like my other
kernels.

- Mark

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] 2.6.13 is 10x slower than 2.6.12!

[Iain Buchanan]

On Mon, 2005-09-26 at 19:52 -0700, Mark Knecht wrote:
> On 9/26/05, Iain Buchanan <iaindb@netspace.net.au> wrote:
> > I just compiled 2.6.13-gentoo-r2 with mostly the same options as
> > 2.6.12-gentoo-r7 (my reference point).  The first time I booted, it took
> > about 10-15 minutes on my 3GHz P4 laptop!  I watched the gdm background
> > slowly display over about 30 seconds.
> 
>    Cannot be a generic problem. I'm running 2.6.13-gentoo-r2 on both
> my 32-bit and 64-bit machines. Seems pretty much like my other
> kernels.

Can I ask laptop or desktop, and what brand?

Can anyone else confirm 2.6.13 running ok on a Dell laptop?

thanks,
-- 
Iain Buchanan <iaindb@netspace.net.au>

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] 2.6.13 is 10x slower than 2.6.12!

[Mark Knecht]

On 9/26/05, Iain Buchanan <iaindb@netspace.net.au> wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-09-26 at 19:52 -0700, Mark Knecht wrote:
> > On 9/26/05, Iain Buchanan <iaindb@netspace.net.au> wrote:
> > > I just compiled 2.6.13-gentoo-r2 with mostly the same options as
> > > 2.6.12-gentoo-r7 (my reference point).  The first time I booted, it took
> > > about 10-15 minutes on my 3GHz P4 laptop!  I watched the gdm background
> > > slowly display over about 30 seconds.
> >
> >    Cannot be a generic problem. I'm running 2.6.13-gentoo-r2 on both
> > my 32-bit and 64-bit machines. Seems pretty much like my other
> > kernels.
>
> Can I ask laptop or desktop, and what brand?
>
> Can anyone else confirm 2.6.13 running ok on a Dell laptop?
>
> thanks,

Compaq R3070us 3GHz laptop
Asus/Via A7V266-E desktop
Emachines P4 3GHz desktop
Asus/Nvidia A8N-E 3GHz AMD64 desktop
>

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] 2.6.13 is 10x slower than 2.6.12!

[Martins]

some time ago i had issue like yours that was caused by broken fonts 
configuration

try this:

boot without X
launch top
see anything taking resources
launch X
see anything taking resources

look in logs




m

At 05:41 2005.09.27., you wrote:
>I just compiled 2.6.13-gentoo-r2 with mostly the same options as
>2.6.12-gentoo-r7 (my reference point).  The first time I booted, it took
>about 10-15 minutes on my 3GHz P4 laptop!  I watched the gdm background
>slowly display over about 30 seconds.
>
>I thought it might have something to do with the new default timer
>frequency, which I set to 250Hz instead of 1000Hz (which is the default
>for pre 2.6.13 kernels).  According to various online sites, 250Hz
>should still be just as usable, and may even use less power, increasing
>my battery performance...
>
>So I changed the timer frequency back to 1000Hz, recompiled and now it
>seems a little faster, but no where near 2.6.12.  It now boots in maybe
>5 minutes, and the gdm theme takes about 5s to display.
>
>glxgears (not maximised) gives me about 30 fps with a radeon 9700!
>
>I checked the frequency governor, and the default is still
>'performance'.  /proc/acpi/processor/CPU0/throttling shows the maximum
>frequency is active as per normal.
>
>Other kernel options I changed are:
>- support for software suspend added (could this be it? I definitely saw
>the message that no valid suspend was found in my swapfile,
>and /proc/swaps shows that I have swap enabled as per usual)
>- removed unnecessary SCSI drivers (I don't have anything SCSI)
>- removed SATA support (I definitely don't have SATA)
>
>Info:
>Dell Ispiron 9100, 3 GHz HT Pentium 4
>2.6.12 and 2.6.13: SMP support for 2 processors included
>
>I've seen 1 post online about the same thing - slow running 2.6.13, so
>surely there must be some people in the world running it ok!  Any help
>on this would be appreciated.
>
>TIA,
>
>--
>Iain Buchanan <iaindb@netspace.net.au>
>
>--
>gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] 2.6.13 is 10x slower than 2.6.12!

[Iain Buchanan]

On Wed, 2005-09-28 at 16:16 +0300, Martins wrote:
> some time ago i had issue like yours that was caused by broken fonts 
> configuration
> 
> try this:
> 
> boot without X
> launch top
> see anything taking resources
> launch X
> see anything taking resources

thanks for the suggestion, but it definitely wasn't anything to do with
X.  The slowness started from the very beginning of boot, right from
when the kernel was loaded.  All the services and loading of modules
took a Very Long Time!

I did infact look at top, but the system was mostly idle.  This is what
made me think it was a kernel issue.  Plus, my fans weren't running, as
they would be if there was something taking up cpu resources.

> look in logs

I didn't think of that!!  Maybe there's something in dmesg that will
give me a clue...

Thanks,
-- 
Iain Buchanan <iaindb@netspace.net.au>

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-user] [smp related] 2.6.13 is 10x slower than 2.6.12!

[Iain Buchanan]

Not long ago, I griped about 2.6.13 being _very_ slow to boot and run.
My original email is at the bottom.

I've since recompiled the kernel without SMP and Hyperthreading, and the
system is _much_ faster.

So, there is a problem with 2.6.13 and SMP or Hyperthreaded machines.
Can anyone else confirm this?  What should I do?  Is there a kernel.org
bugzilla?  Or perhaps I should put it in the gentoo bugzilla?

Any pointers would be appreciated...

thanks.

On Tue, 2005-09-27 at 12:11 +0930, Iain Buchanan wrote:
> I just compiled 2.6.13-gentoo-r2 with mostly the same options as
> 2.6.12-gentoo-r7 (my reference point).  The first time I booted, it took
> about 10-15 minutes on my 3GHz P4 laptop!  I watched the gdm background
> slowly display over about 30 seconds.
> 
> I thought it might have something to do with the new default timer
> frequency, which I set to 250Hz instead of 1000Hz (which is the default
> for pre 2.6.13 kernels).  According to various online sites, 250Hz
> should still be just as usable, and may even use less power, increasing
> my battery performance...
> 
> So I changed the timer frequency back to 1000Hz, recompiled and now it
> seems a little faster, but no where near 2.6.12.  It now boots in maybe
> 5 minutes, and the gdm theme takes about 5s to display.
> 
> glxgears (not maximised) gives me about 30 fps with a radeon 9700!
> 
> I checked the frequency governor, and the default is still
> 'performance'.  /proc/acpi/processor/CPU0/throttling shows the maximum
> frequency is active as per normal.
> 
> Other kernel options I changed are:
> - support for software suspend added (could this be it? I definitely saw
> the message that no valid suspend was found in my swapfile,
> and /proc/swaps shows that I have swap enabled as per usual)
> - removed unnecessary SCSI drivers (I don't have anything SCSI)
> - removed SATA support (I definitely don't have SATA)
> 
> Info:
> Dell Ispiron 9100, 3 GHz HT Pentium 4
> 2.6.12 and 2.6.13: SMP support for 2 processors included
> 
> I've seen 1 post online about the same thing - slow running 2.6.13, so
> surely there must be some people in the world running it ok!  Any help
> on this would be appreciated.
> 
> TIA,

-- 
Iain Buchanan <iaindb@netspace.net.au>

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] [smp related] 2.6.13 is 10x slower than 2.6.12!

[Richard Brown]

On 04/10/05, Iain Buchanan <iaindb@netspace.net.au> wrote:

> Any pointers would be appreciated...
>

Are you using gentoo-sources? This is the recommended routine here.

http://dev.gentoo.org/~dsd/genpatches/bugs.htm

The kernel does have a bugzilla, it's http://bugzilla.kernel.org

Regards,

--
Richard Brown

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] [smp related] 2.6.13 is 10x slower than 2.6.12!

[Iain Buchanan]

On Tue, 2005-10-04 at 09:36 +0100, Richard Brown wrote:
> On 04/10/05, Iain Buchanan <iaindb@netspace.net.au> wrote:
> 
> > Any pointers would be appreciated...
> 
> Are you using gentoo-sources? This is the recommended routine here.
> 
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~dsd/genpatches/bugs.htm
> 
> The kernel does have a bugzilla, it's http://bugzilla.kernel.org

thanks.  Luckily I tried bugzilla.kernel.org before I tried the
suggestions on dev.gentoo.org.

For those following this thread, it appears to be a problem with 2.6.13
and C-states...  The original reporter also had a Dell Inspiron 9100, so
maybe its only that laptop.
More here: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5165

There are two patches on bugzilla above, which I'm going to try out.
Hopefully they'll make it into 2.6.13.x soon!
-- 
Iain Buchanan <iaindb@netspace.net.au>

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] [smp related] 2.6.13 is 10x slower than 2.6.12!

[fire-eyes]

Iain Buchanan wrote:
> Not long ago, I griped about 2.6.13 being _very_ slow to boot and run.
> My original email is at the bottom.
> 
> I've since recompiled the kernel without SMP and Hyperthreading, and the
> system is _much_ faster.
> 
> So, there is a problem with 2.6.13 and SMP or Hyperthreaded machines.
> Can anyone else confirm this?  What should I do?  Is there a kernel.org
> bugzilla?  Or perhaps I should put it in the gentoo bugzilla?
> 
> Any pointers would be appreciated...
> 
> thanks.
> 
> On Tue, 2005-09-27 at 12:11 +0930, Iain Buchanan wrote:

Curious. I have used many kernels on many real (2 physical cpus) SMP
systems, and have never had problems. In fact they are all currently
running 2.6.13 or higher.

I haven't used anything on HT cpus though, so I don't know about that.
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list