From owner-freebsd-hackers  Mon Dec 27 13: 1:50 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from pcnet1.pcnet.com (pcnet1.pcnet.com [204.213.232.3])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2D3014D74
	for <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Mon, 27 Dec 1999 13:01:46 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from eischen@vigrid.com)
Received: (from eischen@localhost)
	by pcnet1.pcnet.com (8.8.7/PCNet) id QAA10296;
	Mon, 27 Dec 1999 16:01:28 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999 16:01:28 -0500 (EST)
From: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com>
To: "Richard Seaman, Jr." <dick@tar.com>
Cc: Kip Macy <kip@lyris.com>, Steffen Merkel <d_f0rce@gmx.de>,
	freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: Kernel threads
In-Reply-To: <19991227124729.I5975@tar.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.991227155441.8874A-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

On Mon, 27 Dec 1999, Richard Seaman, Jr. wrote:

> 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.

Yes, we use SIGPROF now.

Dan Eischen
eischen@vigrid.com


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message