From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Dec 28 14:23:42 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from luna.lyris.net (luna.shelby.com [207.90.155.6]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D73714D9E for ; Tue, 28 Dec 1999 14:23:40 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from kip@lyris.com) Received: from luna.shelby.com by luna.lyris.net (8.9.1b+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id OAA03936; Tue, 28 Dec 1999 14:18:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from (luna.shelby.com [207.90.155.6]) by luna.shelby.com with SMTP (MailShield v1.50); Tue, 28 Dec 1999 14:18:47 -0800 Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 14:18:47 -0800 (PST) From: Kip Macy To: Steffen Merkel Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Kernel threads In-Reply-To: <002c01bf5118$84e701e0$0201a8c0@blade> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SMTP-HELO: luna X-SMTP-MAIL-FROM: kip@lyris.com X-SMTP-RCPT-TO: d_f0rce@gmx.de,freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-SMTP-PEER-INFO: luna.shelby.com [207.90.155.6] Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > > They may be preemptive, but I saw a lot of instances with Lyris where one > > thread could easily monopolize processor time at the expense of all > > others and I had to add sleeps in at places. > > Does this mean I've got to add sleeps in my threads to let other threads get > cpu time? Is there no other possibility? > No, I was not correct. It turns out the behaviour I was observing was due to the use of SIGVTALARM which does not take system call time into acccount. They are now using SIGPROF which does. Sorry about the confusion. -Kip To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message