From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jan 6 07:46:32 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 6761616A407; Sat, 6 Jan 2007 07:46:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jroberson@chesapeake.net) Received: from webaccess-cl.virtdom.com (webaccess-cl.virtdom.com [216.240.101.25]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 157C813C448; Sat, 6 Jan 2007 07:46:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jroberson@chesapeake.net) Received: from [10.0.0.1] (216-160-98-154.tukw.qwest.net [216.160.98.154]) (authenticated bits=0) by webaccess-cl.virtdom.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l067kT4I026413 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-DSS-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 6 Jan 2007 02:46:30 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from jroberson@chesapeake.net) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 23:45:05 -0800 (PST) From: Jeff Roberson X-X-Sender: jroberson@10.0.0.1 To: Norikatsu Shigemura In-Reply-To: <20070106163203.5bad1a4e.nork@FreeBSD.org> Message-ID: <20070105234421.I586@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> <20070106163203.5bad1a4e.nork@FreeBSD.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: 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 07:46:32 -0000 On Sat, 6 Jan 2007, Norikatsu Shigemura wrote: > On Fri, 5 Jan 2007 00:18:43 -0800 (PST) > > 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. You should no longer get the KASSERT. I have another patch for the invalid priority printf. It should go away soon. Thank you for testing. Jeff > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > 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, >