From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jan 31 16:22:14 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68B6F16A4CE for ; Sat, 31 Jan 2004 16:22:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [204.156.12.50]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA0DB43D31 for ; Sat, 31 Jan 2004 16:22:11 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from robert@fledge.watson.org) Received: from fledge.watson.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fledge.watson.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i110JhUd015904; Sat, 31 Jan 2004 19:19:43 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from robert@fledge.watson.org) Received: from localhost (robert@localhost)i110Jh40015901; Sat, 31 Jan 2004 19:19:43 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from robert@fledge.watson.org) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 19:19:43 -0500 (EST) From: Robert Watson X-Sender: robert@fledge.watson.org To: Andy Farkas In-Reply-To: <20040201100311.A81496@hewey.af.speednet.com.au> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org cc: Steve Kargl cc: Harald Schmalzbauer Subject: Re: SCHED_ULE and nice still ignored X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2004 00:22:14 -0000 On Sun, 1 Feb 2004, Andy Farkas wrote: > Steve Kargl wrote: > > > Seems to work for me. You need to describe your problem better. > > sched_ule broke about a week ago. The following example shows an idle 4 > CPU SMP box running -current from 2 days ago. Note the CPU percentages > for the idle threads: The load average measurement appears to be broken, regardless of scheduler. The best thing for now, until load average measurement is fixed (hopefully RSN) is to ignore load as a measure of system "business". However, the niceness issue is separate. ULE seems to be treating niceness as a proportional scheduling priority, whereas 4BSD treats niceness more like realtime priority levels... Robert N M Watson FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Projects robert@fledge.watson.org Senior Research Scientist, McAfee Research > > $ top -Sb > last pid: 67063; load averages: 0.32, 0.38, 0.39 up 1+12:08:26 10:02:38 > 91 processes: 6 running, 71 sleeping, 14 waiting > Mem: 82M Active, 300M Inact, 76M Wired, 29M Cache, 60M Buf, 11M Free > Swap: 64M Total, 64M Free > > PID USERNAME PRI NICE SIZE RES STATE C TIME WCPU CPU COMMAND > 10 root -16 0 0K 12K CPU3 3 34.3H 153.91% 153.91% idle: cpu3 > 11 root -16 0 0K 12K CPU2 2 34.1H 98.44% 98.44% idle: cpu2 > 13 root -16 0 0K 12K RUN 0 24.8H 92.97% 92.97% idle: cpu0 > 12 root -16 0 0K 12K CPU1 1 32.6H 32.03% 32.03% idle: cpu1 > 67 root 20 0 0K 12K syncer 3 34:36 4.69% 4.69% syncer > 67063 andyf 84 0 2200K 1328K CPU0 0 0:00 3.12% 3.12% top > > > Also, this box sits idle alot (like it is in the example above) yet the > load average now does not return to 0.00 like it used to. > > WITNESS and INVARIANTS is turned off, ADAPTIVE_MUTEXES turned on. > > There is something definately not right anymore. > > -- > > :{ andyf@speednet.com.au > > Andy Farkas > System Administrator > Speednet Communications > http://www.speednet.com.au/ > > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >