From owner-cvs-all Mon Sep 16 12:48:21 2002 Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3B3437B68C for ; Mon, 16 Sep 2002 12:48:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.speakeasy.net (mail14.speakeasy.net [216.254.0.214]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 314C543E65 for ; Mon, 16 Sep 2002 12:48:17 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 21613 invoked from network); 16 Sep 2002 19:49:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO server.baldwin.cx) ([216.27.160.63]) (envelope-sender ) by mail14.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with DES-CBC3-SHA encrypted SMTP for ; 16 Sep 2002 19:49:11 -0000 Received: from laptop.baldwin.cx (gw1.twc.weather.com [216.133.140.1]) by server.baldwin.cx (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g8GJluBv055181; Mon, 16 Sep 2002 15:47:59 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.5.2 on FreeBSD X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <200209161903.g8GJ3e687116@arch20m.dellroad.org> Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 15:47:36 -0400 (EDT) From: John Baldwin To: Archie Cobbs Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern kern_timeout.c Cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, "David O'Brien" , Josef Karthauser , Bruce Evans , Poul-Henning Kamp Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On 16-Sep-2002 Archie Cobbs wrote: > Poul-Henning Kamp writes: >> >> > Sep 15 19:40:26 kernel: Expensive timeout(9) function: 0xc65dfc80(0xc659f000) 0.008711721 >> >> > Sep 15 19:40:26 kernel: Expensive timeout(9) function: 0xc65dfc80(0xc659f000) 0.001068850 >> > >> >This is hard to interpret without the function names (or a full stack >> >trace). >> >> Yes, but as far as I'm aware, we still don't have a print_backtrace(9) ? >> >> >I get these on an old dual Celeron system mainly for fxp_tick() >> >and uma_timeout(). >> >> uma_timeout() seems to trigger on practically all systems. >> I've talked with Jeff about it already. > > Would an option to timeout() like SPAWN_SEPARATE_THREAD be a practical > solution for some of these cases? I.e., optionally spawn a separate > thread to handle the timeout() event. > > This may be expensive, but there may also be some timeout events that > are rare, slow and expensive enough themselves to warrant using it. You can have a timeout handler that just does a wakeup of a worker thread. IWBN to include this type of functionality in the callout(9) API I suppose. -- John Baldwin <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message