From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Dec 15 01:20:11 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 B9D8516A4CE for ; Wed, 15 Dec 2004 01:20:11 +0000 (GMT) Received: from pooker.samsco.org (pooker.samsco.org [168.103.85.57]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 370ED43D2D for ; Wed, 15 Dec 2004 01:20:11 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from scottl@freebsd.org) Received: from [192.168.254.11] (junior-wifi.samsco.home [192.168.254.11]) (authenticated bits=0) by pooker.samsco.org (8.12.11/8.12.10) with ESMTP id iBF1Ms8X048601; Tue, 14 Dec 2004 18:22:54 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from scottl@freebsd.org) Message-ID: <41BF9130.9070907@freebsd.org> Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 18:19:44 -0700 From: Scott Long User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040929 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: noackjr@alumni.rice.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> <3683.192.168.1.9.1103072060.squirrel@192.168.1.9> In-Reply-To: <3683.192.168.1.9.1103072060.squirrel@192.168.1.9> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.86.1.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=3.8 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.63 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on pooker.samsco.org cc: Tony Arcieri 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 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 01:20:11 -0000 Jon Noack wrote: > 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 > I'm definitely not against these fixes going into RELENG_5, but I would like to see some significant testing be applied to them in HEAD first, especially to changes that are not confined to just sched_ule.c (and sched_4bsd.c). Scott