From owner-freebsd-current Fri Nov 6 12:38:22 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA28388 for freebsd-current-outgoing; Fri, 6 Nov 1998 12:38:22 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from dingo.cdrom.com (dingo.cdrom.com [204.216.28.145]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA28383 for ; Fri, 6 Nov 1998 12:38:21 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mike@dingo.cdrom.com) Received: from dingo.cdrom.com (localhost.cdrom.com [127.0.0.1]) by dingo.cdrom.com (8.9.1/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA00726; Fri, 6 Nov 1998 12:37:07 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mike@dingo.cdrom.com) Message-Id: <199811062037.MAA00726@dingo.cdrom.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2 2/24/98 To: Cory Kempf cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: bad time slicing? Priorities? In-reply-to: Your message of "06 Nov 1998 11:30:32 EST." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 12:37:07 -0800 From: Mike Smith Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > I have a system running 3.0 SMP, with 2 333MHz PII's. ... > So, do I just not understand how BSD does its scheduling? Or is there > actually something wrong? There appears to be something wrong, actually. Can you replace all the instances of 'cpu ?? CPU_686' in sys/i386/i386/pmap.c with 'cpu_class ?? CPUCLASS_686' (where ?? may be == or !=) and see if this makes any sort of improvement? -- \\ Sometimes you're ahead, \\ Mike Smith \\ sometimes you're behind. \\ mike@smith.net.au \\ The race is long, and in the \\ msmith@freebsd.org \\ end it's only with yourself. \\ msmith@cdrom.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message