From owner-freebsd-alpha Sat Mar 31 8:53:33 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-alpha@freebsd.org Received: from duke.cs.duke.edu (duke.cs.duke.edu [152.3.140.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53AC237B719; Sat, 31 Mar 2001 08:53:30 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from gallatin@cs.duke.edu) Received: from grasshopper.cs.duke.edu (grasshopper.cs.duke.edu [152.3.145.30]) by duke.cs.duke.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA12972; Sat, 31 Mar 2001 11:53:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (from gallatin@localhost) by grasshopper.cs.duke.edu (8.11.3/8.9.1) id f2VGqxl89123; Sat, 31 Mar 2001 11:52:59 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from gallatin@cs.duke.edu) From: Andrew Gallatin MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15046.2923.571297.353243@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 11:52:59 -0500 (EST) To: John Baldwin Cc: freebsd-alpha@FreeBSD.org Subject: RE: do we care about performance yet? In-Reply-To: References: <15044.1867.943183.224703@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 12) "Channel Islands" XEmacs Lucid Sender: owner-freebsd-alpha@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org John Baldwin writes: > > For the buildworld, the system spent about 40% of its time in kernel. > > Roughly 50% of that was in various states of idleness. I've left full > > reports at: <..> > > Name Count Pct Pct > > ---- ----- --- --- > > /boot/kernel/kernel 1411352 39.3 > > runq_check 283261 20.1 7.9 > > procrunnable 268553 19.0 7.5 > > idle_proc 161822 11.5 4.5 > > These 3 are only used when we are sitting idle in the idle proces because there > are no runnable proceses. We can't really optimize these away. :-/ Yes, I realize this. This is the "Roughly 50% of that was in various states of idleness" I mentioned above. Drew To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-alpha" in the body of the message