From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jun 7 18:07:35 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B02816A4D0 for ; Mon, 7 Jun 2004 18:07:35 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail5.speakeasy.net (mail5.speakeasy.net [216.254.0.205]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DB4743D1D for ; Mon, 7 Jun 2004 18:07:35 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 24141 invoked from network); 7 Jun 2004 18:07:35 -0000 Received: from dsl027-160-063.atl1.dsl.speakeasy.net (HELO server.baldwin.cx) ([216.27.160.63]) (envelope-sender ) encrypted SMTP for ; 7 Jun 2004 18:07:34 -0000 Received: from 10.50.41.233 (gw1.twc.weather.com [216.133.140.1]) by server.baldwin.cx (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i57I7V6G004214; Mon, 7 Jun 2004 14:07:31 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) From: John Baldwin To: "Ali Niknam" Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 14:08:19 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.6 References: <200406070827.21333.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <00bd01c44cb5$ccf5f840$0400a8c0@redguy> In-Reply-To: <00bd01c44cb5$ccf5f840$0400a8c0@redguy> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200406071408.19464.jhb@FreeBSD.org> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on server.baldwin.cx cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org cc: Robert Watson Subject: Re: FreeBSD 5.2.1: Mutex/Spinlock starvation? X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 18:07:35 -0000 On Monday 07 June 2004 01:35 pm, Ali Niknam wrote: > > There isn't a timeout. Rather, the lock spins so long as the current > > owning thread is executing on another CPU. > > Interesting. Is there a way to 'lock' CPU's so that they always run on > 'another' CPU ? Not in userland, no. > Unfortunately as we speak the server is down again :( This all makes me > wonder wether I should simply go back to 4.10. > I decreased the maximum number of apache children to 1400 and the server > seems to be barely holding on: > last pid: 2483; load averages: 75.77, 28.63, 11.40 up 0+00:04:32 > 19:35:07 > 1438 processes:2 running, 294 sleeping, 1142 lock > CPU states: 6.2% user, 0.0% nice, 62.6% system, 7.5% interrupt, 23.8% > idle > Mem: 698M Active, 27M Inact, 209M Wired, 440K Cache, 96M Buf, 1068M Free > Swap: 512M Total, 512M Free > > > Are there anymore quite stable things to do ? That is except for upping to > current, which I frankly feel is too dangerous... Nothing that I can think of off the top of my head. -- John Baldwin <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve" = http://www.FreeBSD.org