Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 16:31:53 -0400 From: Super Bisquit <superbisquit@gmail.com> To: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> Cc: Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>, freebsd-current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD Hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD PowerPC ML <freebsd-ppc@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Kern.hz= +1 hertz at anything 2500 and above. Message-ID: <CA%2BWntOuasi-OLCkOewzQHS2L_MQXkNu5z2z4fcscpKST5c3=Vw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAJ-VmokKMwuo8dRRXGzZttaoay%2BJk_hfk_ESVdZX4m55CzXVCg@mail.gmail.com> References: <CA%2BWntOvcN%2BLEog5_W6aQUT%2BZw_5ZgEkdYEcR8QTW3zZSUOuypA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ-VmonFMXg_PcG=daU7Vk2r89epr6PpMHGdbnMLyFY=FgvNYQ@mail.gmail.com> <CA%2BWntOspTSm3OM23KrY5vzDasuGVOU0HSK7BOuLaxgbvPVB8=g@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1307251150400.12856@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <CAJ-VmokKMwuo8dRRXGzZttaoay%2BJk_hfk_ESVdZX4m55CzXVCg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I haven't done much messing with scheduling. It is set at the default ULE for this machine. On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> wrote: > On 25 July 2013 02:51, Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> > wrote: > >> improved with a higher kern.hz rating. Unless the future holds an > emu20k2, > >> there will be RAM used from the motherboard. > >> 1. I will need a real-time or a faster kernel- hence the high rate > wanted- > >> because the devices to be built will be used in an active environment: > >> art, > >> music, audio control. > >> 2. Any system with limited memory and a low CPU hertz rate benefits from > >> the higher kern.hz setting. > > > rather opposite. more kern.hz=more interrupts. > > Right. > > More hz == more interrupts and less ability for a CPU-bound process to > chew all the CPU. > > So is it a scheduling issue, where you have multiple CPU bound > userland processes that aren't being fair and consuming all the CPU? > Is it that your device driver(s) aren't interrupting correctly, > relying on the hz tick to make up the slack, etc. > > Is it a busted halt loop, which is being papered over with hz ticks? > > Have you tried -10 on that kit, with the more aggressive clock/timer > code that won't interrupt unless it needs to? Has that changed things? > > > > -adrian >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CA%2BWntOuasi-OLCkOewzQHS2L_MQXkNu5z2z4fcscpKST5c3=Vw>