From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Mar 18 13:04:07 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B66051065675; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 13:04:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org) Received: from cyrus.watson.org (cyrus.watson.org [209.31.154.42]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 806AC8FC31; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 13:04:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org) Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [209.31.154.41]) by cyrus.watson.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B74F046CA2; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 09:04:05 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 13:04:05 +0000 (GMT) From: Robert Watson X-X-Sender: robert@fledge.watson.org To: John Baldwin In-Reply-To: <200803180845.28959.jhb@freebsd.org> Message-ID: <20080318130241.J17188@fledge.watson.org> References: <20080210120013.4C3D116A421@hub.freebsd.org> <47de32b3.1bbc720a.7cf0.ffff8ff1@mx.google.com> <20080318111805.W17188@fledge.watson.org> <200803180845.28959.jhb@freebsd.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, Aminuddin Abdullah Subject: Re: V7 High CPU Usage on swi5:+, what is this process? X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 13:04:07 -0000 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