From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jan 6 07:32:16 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: current@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCC7816A403; Sat, 6 Jan 2007 07:32:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from nork@FreeBSD.org) Received: from sakura.ninth-nine.com (sakura.ninth-nine.com [219.127.74.120]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FECD13C44C; Sat, 6 Jan 2007 07:32:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from nork@FreeBSD.org) Received: from nadesico.ninth-nine.com (nadesico.ninth-nine.com [219.127.74.122]) by sakura.ninth-nine.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NinthNine) with SMTP id l067W3p6046559; Sat, 6 Jan 2007 16:32:04 +0900 (JST) (envelope-from nork@FreeBSD.org) Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2007 16:32:03 +0900 From: Norikatsu Shigemura To: Jeff Roberson Message-Id: <20070106163203.5bad1a4e.nork@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20070105001814.N552@10.0.0.1> References: <20070104005625.D1508@10.0.0.1> <20070105000500.d005ca0b.nork@FreeBSD.org> <20070104170932.C552@10.0.0.1> <2329.211.18.249.19.1167981583.squirrel@mail.ninth-nine.com> <20070105001814.N552@10.0.0.1> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.3.0rc (GTK+ 2.10.6; i386-portbld-freebsd6.2) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-2.0.2 (sakura.ninth-nine.com [219.127.74.121]); Sat, 06 Jan 2007 16:32:04 +0900 (JST) Cc: Norikatsu Shigemura , current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ULE 2.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2007 07:32:16 -0000 On Fri, 5 Jan 2007 00:18:43 -0800 (PST) Jeff Roberson wrote: > On Fri, 5 Jan 2007, Norikatsu Shigemura wrote: > >> One oops in my last patch. Try this one. > > I got following message. > Thank you. > I assume it booted ok after this? I will commit something soon to address > it. I want to test it more heavily first. Thank you. I got following message. Sorry I don't use latest your sched_ule.c. If this issue was fixed, please wait a minute. I'm compiling latest current kernel. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Timecounters tick every 1.000 msec Fast IPsec: Initialized Security Association Processing. (noperiph:sym0:0:-1:-1): SCSI BUS reset delivered. (noperiph:sym1:0:-1:-1): SCSI BUS reset delivered. sched_priority: invalid priority 225nice 0, ticks 46194 ftick 0 ltick 45 tick pri 45 ad0: 78533MB at ata0-master UDMA100 firewire0: bus manager 2 ad1: 238475MB at ata1-master UDMA100 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I got 'invalid interactive priority' KASSERTion. Sorry I didn't take a note. If I reproduce it, I'll report to you. MY IMPRESSION: I don't know that ULE2.0 is faster than 4BSD. But I feel feathery. Because, on make extract in big tarball, I can use my desktop comfortably than 4BSD. And I can see .avi with a little stop:-) I'll continue to test ULE2.0. P.S. I think that 'invalid priority' message is ugly:-). Please change like following patch. This is cosmetic change. Index: sched_ule.c =================================================================== RCS file: /home/ncvs/src/sys/kern/sched_ule.c,v retrieving revision 1.176 diff -u -r1.176 sched_ule.c --- sched_ule.c 6 Jan 2007 02:34:23 -0000 1.176 +++ sched_ule.c 6 Jan 2007 07:12:24 -0000 @@ -1057,9 +1057,9 @@ if (!(pri >= PRI_MIN_TIMESHARE && pri <= PRI_MAX_TIMESHARE)) { static int once = 1; if (once) { - printf("sched_priority: invalid priority %d", + printf("sched_priority: invalid priority %d\n", pri); - printf("nice %d, ticks %d ftick %d ltick %d tick pri %d\n", + printf("nice %d, ticks %d, ftick %d, ltick %d, tick pri %d\n", td->td_proc->p_nice, td->td_sched->ts_ticks, td->td_sched->ts_ftick,