From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jul 11 14:41:27 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1949F1065670 for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 14:41:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-current@m.gmane.org) Received: from lo.gmane.org (lo.gmane.org [80.91.229.12]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81B2F8FC18 for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 14:41:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QgHfo-0006x2-3r for freebsd-current@freebsd.org; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 16:41:24 +0200 Received: from lara.cc.fer.hr ([161.53.72.113]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 16:41:24 +0200 Received: from ivoras by lara.cc.fer.hr with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 16:41:24 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org From: Ivan Voras Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 16:41:04 +0200 Lines: 26 Message-ID: References: <20110706170132.GA68775@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <5080.1309971941@critter.freebsd.dk> <20110706180001.GA69157@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <4E14A54A.4050106@freebsd.org> <4E155FF9.5090905@FreeBSD.org> <20110707151440.GA75537@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <4E160C2F.8020001@FreeBSD.org> <20110707200845.GA77049@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: lara.cc.fer.hr User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD amd64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101102 Thunderbird/3.1.6 In-Reply-To: <20110707200845.GA77049@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2 Subject: Re: Heavy I/O blocks FreeBSD box for several seconds 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: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 14:41:27 -0000 On 07/07/2011 22:08, Steve Kargl wrote: > 4BSD kernel gives for N = Ncpu + 1. > > 34 processes: 6 running, 28 sleeping > > PID USERNAME THR PRI NICE SIZE RES STATE C TIME CPU COMMAND > 1417 kargl 1 71 0 370M 294M RUN 0 1:30 79.39% sasmp > 1416 kargl 1 71 0 370M 294M RUN 0 1:30 79.20% sasmp > 1418 kargl 1 71 0 370M 294M CPU2 0 1:29 78.81% sasmp > 1420 kargl 1 71 0 370M 294M CPU1 2 1:30 78.27% sasmp > 1419 kargl 1 70 0 370M 294M CPU3 0 1:30 77.59% sasmp > ULE kernel gives for N = Ncpu + 1. > > 34 processes: 6 running, 28 sleeping > > PID USERNAME THR PRI NICE SIZE RES STATE C TIME CPU COMMAND > 1318 kargl 1 103 0 370M 294M CPU0 0 1:31 100.00% sasmp > 1319 kargl 1 103 0 370M 294M RUN 1 1:29 100.00% sasmp > 1322 kargl 1 99 0 370M 294M CPU2 2 1:03 87.26% sasmp > 1320 kargl 1 91 0 370M 294M RUN 3 1:07 60.79% sasmp > 1321 kargl 1 89 0 370M 294M CPU3 3 1:06 55.18% sasmp I can confirm this. Look at the priorities column for the two cases. For some reason (CPU affinity?) the loads get asymmetrical on ULE.