From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Dec 27 10:47:43 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from test.tar.com (test.tar.com [204.95.187.4]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AD2D14DF5 for ; Mon, 27 Dec 1999 10:47:40 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dick@test.tar.com) Received: (from dick@localhost) by test.tar.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA75223; Mon, 27 Dec 1999 12:47:29 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from dick) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999 12:47:29 -0600 From: "Richard Seaman, Jr." To: Kip Macy Cc: "Richard Seaman, Jr." , Steffen Merkel , freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Kernel threads Message-ID: <19991227124729.I5975@tar.com> References: <19991227120931.H5975@tar.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: ; from kip@lyris.com on Mon, Dec 27, 1999 at 10:30:54AM -0800 Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Mon, Dec 27, 1999 at 10:30:54AM -0800, Kip Macy wrote: > They may be preemptive, but I saw a lot of instances with Lyris where one > thread could easily monopolize processor time at the expense of all > others and I had to add sleeps in at places. Is this recently, or a while ago? FreeBSD user threads used to use SIGVTALRM for its pre-emption signal. This didn't count time in syscalls. So, if you had a syscall (eg I/O) intensive thread, it would hog processor time. I think that has been changed. -- Richard Seaman, Jr. email: dick@tar.com 5182 N. Maple Lane phone: 262-367-5450 Chenequa WI 53058 fax: 262-367-5852 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message