From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jun 7 08:16:23 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB251106566C for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2012 08:16:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from momchil@xaxo.eu) Received: from vps2.xaxo.eu (vps2.xaxo.eu [78.47.156.66]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79EEE8FC16 for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2012 08:16:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from t61.xaxo.eu ([10.75.23.6]) by vps2.xaxo.eu (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q577GG90070726; Thu, 7 Jun 2012 09:16:19 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from momchil@xaxo.eu) Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2012 10:16:07 +0200 Message-ID: <86ehprtu48.wl%momchil@xaxo.eu> From: Momchil Ivanov To: Erich In-Reply-To: <12782903.WNKlBIO9Im@x220.ovitrap.com> References: <86fwa8szos.wl%momchil@xaxo.eu> <12782903.WNKlBIO9Im@x220.ovitrap.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: =?UTF-8?B?0JzQvtC80YfQuNC7INCY0LLQsNC90L4=?=, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, =?UTF-8?B?0LI=?= Subject: Re: ULE Scheduler X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2012 08:16:24 -0000 At Thu, 07 Jun 2012 09:12:55 +0700, Erich wrote: > > Hi, > > On 07 June 2012 3:01:07 Момчил Иванов wrote: > > > temperature. It was constantly increasing from about 33 C. I took a > > look at top and saw that both processes were wildly jumping accross > > the cores, i.e. CPU0 and CPU1. > > > > So before reading all the papers about the ULE scheduler and the > > source code, I would like to as a simple question: is it that stupid? > > maybe, maybe not. It could be that the difference is minor as the cache for both kernels is in the same chip. > > > > I mean, there are just 2 processes running (except of top, X and > > ... which should be scheduled occasionally) on 2 cores of one physical > > processor. Why sould each be scheduled on a different core each time? > > > > I did cpuset to pin each to a specific core and got to about a > > constant temperature of 72 C. I am affraid to "cpuset -l 0,1 -p <...>" > > both of them since I might again get at 100 C. > > This would be the interesting point? Did it happen because of the dirt or because or the scheduler. > > > > Is there some remedy? > > I think that the only remedy available is the one you applied. > > Erich > I've repeated the same experiment just now, setting both processes on both cores with cpuset. The temperature got to about 72-74 C, so the two small pieces of dirt that came out, the fresh thermal liquid and tightening the screws probably gave me 10 about C on idle (from 53 C down to 45 C) and 30 C on full load. I didn't expect that much... Though, it was strange seeing both processes hopping around... I will probably go back to the 4BSD scheduler if my laptop does another self-shutdown in the next few days as Doug suggested. Regards, Momchil