From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue May 29 19:04:13 2007
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: arch@freebsd.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1A8916A400
	for <arch@freebsd.org>; Tue, 29 May 2007 19:04:13 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk)
Received: from phk.freebsd.dk (phk.freebsd.dk [130.225.244.222])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 622FA13C45A
	for <arch@freebsd.org>; Tue, 29 May 2007 19:04:13 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk)
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (unknown [192.168.61.3])
	by phk.freebsd.dk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9822D17380;
	Tue, 29 May 2007 19:04:11 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by critter.freebsd.dk (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id l4TJ4gnd032970;
	Tue, 29 May 2007 19:04:42 GMT (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk)
To: Jeff Roberson <jroberson@chesapeake.net>
From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 29 May 2007 11:01:36 MST."
	<20070529105856.L661@10.0.0.1> 
Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 19:04:42 +0000
Message-ID: <32969.1180465482@critter.freebsd.dk>
Sender: phk@critter.freebsd.dk
Cc: arch@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: rusage breakdown and cpu limits. 
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture <freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 19:04:13 -0000

In message <20070529105856.L661@10.0.0.1>, Jeff Roberson writes:

>I'm working with Attilio to break down rusage further to be per-thread in 
>places where it is protected by the global scheduler lock.  To support 
>this, I am interested in moving the rlimit cpulimit check into userret(), 
>or perhaps ast().  Is there any reason why we need to check this on every 
>context switch?  Any objections to moving it?  Eventually it will require 
>a different lock from the one we obtain to call mi_switch().

For all I care, we can do the cpu limit check once per second only.

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.