From owner-freebsd-current Wed Jun 10 06:23:55 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA26801 for freebsd-current-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 06:23:55 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from godzilla.zeta.org.au (godzilla.zeta.org.au [203.15.68.22]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA26779 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 06:23:52 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bde@godzilla.zeta.org.au) Received: (from bde@localhost) by godzilla.zeta.org.au (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA21805; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 23:23:46 +1000 Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 23:23:46 +1000 From: Bruce Evans Message-Id: <199806101323.XAA21805@godzilla.zeta.org.au> To: jb@cimlogic.com.au, rb@gid.co.uk Subject: Re: Spurious SIGXCPU Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG, jdp@polstra.com Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG >>> You wouldn't perchance happen to be running anything CPU-intensive in the >>> background, nice'd right down? >> >>Not in the background, but the foreground process is both CPU intensive >>and long lived. It's a build program that checks out RCS files, >>... >Hmm. I'm running an RC5 client permanently in the background at nice 19 >that soaks up all the unused CPU. Never seen that fail itself though. Apparently the background process makes it more likely for the foreground process to appear to take a negative amount of time. Another sign of the bug is that accounting for rapid context switches is broken again: $ time ./fork-benchmark 10000 6.10 real 0.01 user 8.33 sys Bruce To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message