Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 14:08:19 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: "Ali Niknam" <ali@transip.nl> Cc: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: FreeBSD 5.2.1: Mutex/Spinlock starvation? Message-ID: <200406071408.19464.jhb@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <00bd01c44cb5$ccf5f840$0400a8c0@redguy> References: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1040604153442.34555O-100000@fledge.watson.org> <200406070827.21333.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <00bd01c44cb5$ccf5f840$0400a8c0@redguy>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Monday 07 June 2004 01:35 pm, Ali Niknam wrote: > > There isn't a timeout. Rather, the lock spins so long as the current > > owning thread is executing on another CPU. > > Interesting. Is there a way to 'lock' CPU's so that they always run on > 'another' CPU ? Not in userland, no. > Unfortunately as we speak the server is down again :( This all makes me > wonder wether I should simply go back to 4.10. > I decreased the maximum number of apache children to 1400 and the server > seems to be barely holding on: > last pid: 2483; load averages: 75.77, 28.63, 11.40 up 0+00:04:32 > 19:35:07 > 1438 processes:2 running, 294 sleeping, 1142 lock > CPU states: 6.2% user, 0.0% nice, 62.6% system, 7.5% interrupt, 23.8% > idle > Mem: 698M Active, 27M Inact, 209M Wired, 440K Cache, 96M Buf, 1068M Free > Swap: 512M Total, 512M Free > > > Are there anymore quite stable things to do ? That is except for upping to > current, which I frankly feel is too dangerous... Nothing that I can think of off the top of my head. -- John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve" = http://www.FreeBSD.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200406071408.19464.jhb>