From owner-freebsd-current Wed Mar 7 5:43:16 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mailman.zeta.org.au (mailman.zeta.org.au [203.26.10.16]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FADF37B718; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 05:43:13 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from bde@zeta.org.au) Received: from bde.zeta.org.au (bde.zeta.org.au [203.2.228.102]) by mailman.zeta.org.au (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA14338; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 00:42:48 +1100 Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 00:42:39 +1100 (EST) From: Bruce Evans X-Sender: bde@besplex.bde.org To: Mark Murray Cc: Maxim Sobolev , dougb@FreeBSD.ORG, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: harvest_interrupt=YES slows down machine In-Reply-To: <200103071246.f27Ck6R59376@gratis.grondar.za> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, Mark Murray wrote: > > > Apart from a ridiculously low maxusers (you have 10, I recommend 128), > > > I'm not sure what the problem is. > > > > I do not see why it is "ridiculously low". Even GENERIC recommends 32, while > > this is a small system intended to be used by only one person, so I do not see > > any problem with it. I never had any `out of descriptors' or `can't fork' > > during my routine operations on this box (2.5 years). > > Ok - then please leave it at 32. I use 10 with no problems. > If you want me to help you, please help me get good info. > > It's very important to me _know_ wether this is a boot slowdown or > a generic - assertions are not good enough, I need hard facts. > > My own laptop (A Toshiba Libretto 110CT) does a make world in > about 8 hours (and it always has). Interrupt harvesting has not > made a noticable difference (I have not been keeping records, but > an overnight build has not yet progressed into my breakfast). Just do something that causes a lot of interrupts that go through the random harvester. E.g.: dd if=/dev/ad0 of=/dev/null causes 7750 interrupts/sec here (on a Celeron 366 overclocked to 522). The random task takes 100% of the available cpu cycles. This slows down cpu-bound processes by a factor of about 3.5. With a block size of 64k instead of the default of 512, this causes only 300 interrupts/sec. The random task takes a measly 27% of the cpu to process these. It can apparently only handle about 10 interrupts/second with a reasonable overhead (1%). Interrupt harvesting doesn't make much difference to makeworld because makeworld is cpu-bound. I estimate it to be about 2% here (20 interrupts per second for disk i/o to local disks. It would be a lot more for nfs). Bruce To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message