Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 13:04:05 +0000 (GMT) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, Aminuddin Abdullah <amin.scg@gmail.com> Subject: Re: V7 High CPU Usage on swi5:+, what is this process? Message-ID: <20080318130241.J17188@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <200803180845.28959.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <20080210120013.4C3D116A421@hub.freebsd.org> <47de32b3.1bbc720a.7cf0.ffff8ff1@mx.google.com> <20080318111805.W17188@fledge.watson.org> <200803180845.28959.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 18 Mar 2008, John Baldwin wrote: >> '+' is used in a swi name to indicate that the names of the interrupts to >> put in the thread name are too long, and the code looks like it was written >> under the assumption that at least one name would fit. It sounds like in >> this case, none fit. We should fix this code, but in the mean time, what >> you might consider doing is hacking intr_event_update() in kern_intr.c to >> print out overflowing names to the console using printf(9) so you can at >> least see what they are. This is the somewhat suspect bit of code: > > The code is not suspect as p_comm is of fixed length. Someone just used too > long of a name for a swi handler. I was wondering whether we might not do better to put as much in as we can but truncate with a '*', so you at least get a fractional swi name. Under what situations do we use a single ithread for multiple swi's? Robert N M Watson Computer Laboratory University of Cambridge
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080318130241.J17188>