Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 17:08:43 -0600 (CST) From: "Jon Noack" <noackjr@alumni.rice.edu> To: "Tony Arcieri" <tarcieri@atmos.colostate.edu> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern sched_ule.c (fwd) Message-ID: <3308.192.168.1.9.1103065723.squirrel@192.168.1.9> In-Reply-To: <20041214222444.GA9668@flash.atmos.colostate.edu> References: <20041214222444.GA9668@flash.atmos.colostate.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Tony Arcieri wrote: > On 2004-12-13 17:26:10 Scott Long wrote: >> RELENG_5 is the stable branch. If quality testing goes into ULE in HEAD >> and it's shown to be as stable as 4BSD then we can consider it for >> RELENG_5 in the future. Given the incredible problems that we had in >> the scheduler leading up to 5.3, I'm not excited about quickly merging >> these things. > > I have FreeBSD 5.3 installed on a dual amd64 colo server of mine and have > been experiencing severe issues with the system and the 4BSD scheduler > under heavy MySQL load. Originally with 5.3-RELEASE these appeared to be > kernel crashes/deadlocks, but unfortunately I never had a dump device > configured when I was running 5.3-RELEASE and so I don't have a core file > to be examined. > > However, I've been checking out the sys/ sources from RELENG_5 fairly > frequently and still experience severe issues with the 4BSD scheduler > when the system is under heavy database load. Namely, while the kernel > appears to remain running and the system continues to respond to pings, > all other network services cease to function. New TCP connections are > accepted, but the services don't respond, and existing connections time > out. > > I have found this does NOT occur when the ULE scheduler is used. I have > (perhaps foolishly) attempted to copy the minimum necessary files to run > the ULE scheduler from the -CURRENT branch and merge them myself into the > 5-STABLE sources, which I believe are sched_ule.c and kern_switch.c, and > have modified the proc_fini() function in kern_proc.c to panic if invoked > (since according to the comments, UMA should ensure that proc_fini is > never called, correct?). If these are all the changes that are needed to > import the ULE scheduler, then why continue to include the broken ULE > scheduler with an #error tag rather than importing the minimum sources > required for the ULE scheduler to work and leave it off per default? > > I, for one, am experiencing better system stability with ULE than with > 4BSD. > If anyone cares to examine my system I can provide shell access. I thought about trying this last night when I saw that ULE was resurrected. Make sure you also grab kern_sig.c: http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-src/2004-December/036757.html I can't say whether those 3 files are all you need, just that I would also include kern_sig.c... ;-) Jon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3308.192.168.1.9.1103065723.squirrel>