From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Dec 15 00:54:24 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45B2116A4CE for ; Wed, 15 Dec 2004 00:54:24 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtp006.bizmail.sc5.yahoo.com (smtp006.bizmail.sc5.yahoo.com [66.163.175.83]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id EEFC143D49 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 2004 00:54:23 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from noackjr@alumni.rice.edu) Received: from unknown (HELO optimator.noacks.org) (noackjr@supercrime.org@70.240.198.174 with login) by smtp006.bizmail.sc5.yahoo.com with SMTP; 15 Dec 2004 00:54:23 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimator.noacks.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC12361BD; Tue, 14 Dec 2004 18:54:22 -0600 (CST) Received: from optimator.noacks.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (optimator.noacks.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 88148-14-2; Tue, 14 Dec 2004 18:54:20 -0600 (CST) Received: from www.noacks.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimator.noacks.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0594616B; Tue, 14 Dec 2004 18:54:20 -0600 (CST) Received: from 192.168.1.9 (SquirrelMail authenticated user noackjr); by www.noacks.org with HTTP; Tue, 14 Dec 2004 18:54:20 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <3683.192.168.1.9.1103072060.squirrel@192.168.1.9> In-Reply-To: <20041215001222.GB9957@flash.atmos.colostate.edu> References: <20041214222444.GA9668@flash.atmos.colostate.edu> <3308.192.168.1.9.1103065723.squirrel@192.168.1.9> <20041215001222.GB9957@flash.atmos.colostate.edu> Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 18:54:20 -0600 (CST) From: "Jon Noack" To: "Tony Arcieri" User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.3a X-Mailer: SquirrelMail/1.4.3a MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at noacks.org cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern sched_ule.c (fwd) X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: noackjr@alumni.rice.edu List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 00:54:24 -0000 Tony Arcieri wrote: > On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 05:08:43PM -0600, Jon Noack wrote: >> 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... ;-) > > Rebuilt with kern_sig.c from -CURRENT, everything seems fine, as far as I > can tell. Are there really any substantial changes in kern_sig.c and > kern_switch.c that would affect the stability of 5_STABLE (and does > UMA in 5_STABLE ensure thati proc_fini() won't be called?) I don't know about kern_switch.c, but the change in kern_sig.c fixes #2 on Jeff Roberson's list of bugs in ULE (from a few days ago): http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2004-December/044332.html > I'd just contend that in the case of my system, 5_STABLE with the 4BSD > scheduler is not stable, or at least the script I'm running is somehow > exhausting system resources to the point that the system becomes unusable, > and this problem isn't exhibited with the ULE scheduler. Regardless, the > script was causing the 5.3-RELEASE GENERIC kernel to panic, and rendered > the system completely inaccessible with a kernel built from the latest (as > of about 5 days ago) RELENG_5 kernel with the 4BSD scheduler. > > So, I'd be very grateful if ULE could be merged into RELENG_5 as it would > dramatically improve the stability of at least my server. Has anyone else > with a dual amd64 system had problems like this post 5.3-RELEASE? I know > crashes under heavy MySQL load on dual amd64 systems were a problem > before, but I thought that had been resolved. I think removing the #error and putting a note on boot (and in UPDATING) that it may still be unstable is a good idea. However, Scott Long has expressed reservations (http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2004-December/044341.html) and his opinion counts orders of magnitude more than mine. Jon