From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu May 20 22:31:19 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
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 EA6C716A4CE
	for <current@FreeBSD.org>; Thu, 20 May 2004 22:31:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aldan.algebra.com (aldan.algebra.com [216.254.65.224])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90B0343D48
	for <current@FreeBSD.org>; Thu, 20 May 2004 22:31:19 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from mi@aldan.algebra.com)
Received: from aldan.algebra.com (mi@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by aldan.algebra.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i4L5VF0Z046021
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO);
	Fri, 21 May 2004 01:31:15 -0400 (EDT)
	(envelope-from mi@aldan.algebra.com)
Received: by aldan.algebra.com (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) id i4L5VEMd046020;
	Fri, 21 May 2004 01:31:14 -0400 (EDT)
	(envelope-from mi)
From: Mikhail Teterin <mi+kde@aldan.algebra.com>
To: noackjr@alumni.rice.edu
Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 01:31:12 -0400
User-Agent: KMail/1.6.1
References: <200405200334.i4K3YlGU027751@corbulon.video-collage.com>
	<40AD684D.9020200@alumni.rice.edu>
In-Reply-To: <40AD684D.9020200@alumni.rice.edu>
X-Face: %UW#n0|w>ydeGt/b@1-.UFP=K^~-:0f#O:D7w<gv/&E-lL7twZCT8B~/PA4|\t$ti+22K">hJ5G_<5143Bb3kOIs9XpX+"V+~$adGP:J|SLieM31VIhqXeLBli"<kcG^EOVihy+z3/UR{6SCQ
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <200405210131.12626@aldan>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 21 May 2004 04:56:27 -0700
cc: current@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: a scheduling question
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 05:31:20 -0000

On Thursday 20 May 2004 10:24 pm, Jon Noack wrote:
= On 05/19/04 22:34, Mikhail Teterin wrote:
= > Here is a top's snapshot from a dual CPU machine. Two lame encoders
= > compete for the first CPU, while the total idle time is 35.6%. Why
= > is that? Because they are nice? Is niceness really supposed to allow
= > for wasted CPU? Thanks!
=
= I noticed the cdparanoi[a] processes. What is/are the exact command(s)
= you are doing? If you are encoding on-the-fly, are you sure the lame
= processes are not being limited by the ripping rate?

No, the driving process is from audio/abcde -- cdparanoia rips into
trackXX.wav, and -- once a track is completele ripped -- a lame process
is launched. You saw both of the lame processes in the RUN state...

= It would be best if you could come up with a test case for us to see
= if we can reproduce your problem.

Try running two lame encoders in parallel with nice 10...

	-mi