From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Dec 19 15:19:27 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA03A16A41A; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 15:19:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dg@dglawrence.com) Received: from dglawrence.com (static-72-90-113-2.ptldor.fios.verizon.net [72.90.113.2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5AF113C478; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 15:19:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dg@dglawrence.com) Received: from tnn.dglawrence.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dglawrence.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id lBJFJR29078751; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 07:19:27 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dg@dglawrence.com) Received: (from dg@localhost) by tnn.dglawrence.com (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id lBJFJREq078750; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 07:19:27 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dg@dglawrence.com) X-Authentication-Warning: tnn.dglawrence.com: dg set sender to dg@dglawrence.com using -f Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 07:19:27 -0800 From: David G Lawrence To: Bruce Evans Message-ID: <20071219151926.GA25053@tnn.dglawrence.com> References: <20071217103936.GR25053@tnn.dglawrence.com> <20071218170133.X32807@delplex.bde.org> <47676E96.4030708@samsco.org> <20071218233644.U756@besplex.bde.org> <20071218141742.GS25053@tnn.dglawrence.com> <20071219022102.I34422@delplex.bde.org> <20071218165732.GV25053@tnn.dglawrence.com> <20071218181023.GW25053@tnn.dglawrence.com> <20071219235444.K928@besplex.bde.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20071219235444.K928@besplex.bde.org> X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0 (dglawrence.com [127.0.0.1]); Wed, 19 Dec 2007 07:19:27 -0800 (PST) Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Packet loss every 30.999 seconds X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 15:19:28 -0000 > On Tue, 18 Dec 2007, David G Lawrence wrote: > > >>>I got an almost identical delay (with 64000 vnodes). > >>> > >>>Now, 17ms isn't much. > >> > >> Says you. On modern systems, trying to run a pseudo real-time > >> application > >>on an otherwise quiescent system, 17ms is just short of an eternity. I > >>agree > >>that the syncer should be preemptable (which is what my bandaid patch > >>attempts to do), but that probably wouldn't have helped my specific > >>problem > >>since my application was a user process, not a kernel thread. > > FreeBSD isn't a real-time system, and 17ms isn't much for it. I saw lots I never said it was, but that doesn't stop us from using FreeBSD in pseudo real-time applications. This is made possible by fast CPUs and dedicated-task systems where the load is carefully controlled. > of syscall delays of nearly 1 second while debugging this. (With another I can make the delay several minutes by pushing the reset button. > Debugging shows that the problem is like I said. The loop really does > take 125 ns per iteration. This time is actually not very much. The Considering that the CPU clock cycle time is on the order of 300ps, I would say 125ns to do a few checks is pathetic. In any case, it appears that my patch is a no-op, at least for the problem I was trying to solve. This has me confused, however, because at one point the problem was mitigated with it. The patch has gone through several iterations, however, and it could be that it was made to the top of the loop, before any of the checks, in a previous version. Hmmm. -DG David G. Lawrence President Download Technologies, Inc. - http://www.downloadtech.com - (866) 399 8500 The FreeBSD Project - http://www.freebsd.org Pave the road of life with opportunities.