From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Dec 6 06:27:23 2010 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 539C71065673 for ; Mon, 6 Dec 2010 06:27:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from julian@freebsd.org) Received: from out-0.mx.aerioconnect.net (outd.internet-mail-service.net [216.240.47.227]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 304208FC13 for ; Mon, 6 Dec 2010 06:27:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from idiom.com (postfix@mx0.idiom.com [216.240.32.160]) by out-0.mx.aerioconnect.net (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id oB66RK6e024194; Sun, 5 Dec 2010 22:27:20 -0800 X-Client-Authorized: MaGic Cook1e X-Client-Authorized: MaGic Cook1e X-Client-Authorized: MaGic Cook1e Received: from julian-mac.elischer.org (h-67-100-89-137.snfccasy.static.covad.net [67.100.89.137]) by idiom.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BFF32D6011; Sun, 5 Dec 2010 22:27:18 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4CFC8246.4040507@freebsd.org> Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2010 22:27:18 -0800 From: Julian Elischer User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X 10.4; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Thunderbird/3.1.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Garrett Cooper References: <20101205231829.GA68156@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <4CFC27A0.8000406@freebsd.org> <20101206061230.GA69477@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <4CFC812B.9060505@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.67 on 216.240.47.51 Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Steve Kargl Subject: Re: Process accounting/timing has broken recently 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, 06 Dec 2010 06:27:23 -0000 On 12/5/10 10:24 PM, Garrett Cooper wrote: > On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 10:22 PM, Julian Elischer wrote: >> On 12/5/10 10:19 PM, Garrett Cooper wrote: >>> On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 10:12 PM, Steve Kargl >>> wrote: >>>> On Sun, Dec 05, 2010 at 04:00:32PM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote: >>>>> On 12/5/10 3:18 PM, Steve Kargl wrote: >>>>>> Sometime in the last 7-10 days, some one made a >>>>>> change that has broken process accounting/timing. >>>>>> >>>>>> laptop:kargl[42] foreach i ( 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ) >>>>>> foreach? time ./testf >>>>>> foreach? end >>>>>> Max ULP: 0.501607 for x in [-18.000000:88.709999] with dx = >>>>>> 1.067100e-04 >>>>>> 69.55 real 38.39 user 30.94 sys >>>>>> Max ULP: 0.501607 for x in [-18.000000:88.709999] with dx = >>>>>> 1.067100e-04 >>>>>> 68.82 real 40.95 user 27.60 sys >>>>>> Max ULP: 0.501607 for x in [-18.000000:88.709999] with dx = >>>>>> 1.067100e-04 >>>>>> 69.14 real 38.90 user 30.02 sys >>>>>> Max ULP: 0.501607 for x in [-18.000000:88.709999] with dx = >>>>>> 1.067100e-04 >>>>>> 68.79 real 40.59 user 27.99 sys >>>>>> Max ULP: 0.501607 for x in [-18.000000:88.709999] with dx = >>>>>> 1.067100e-04 >>>>>> 68.93 real 39.76 user 28.96 sys >>>>>> Max ULP: 0.501607 for x in [-18.000000:88.709999] with dx = >>>>>> 1.067100e-04 >>>>>> 68.71 real 41.21 user 27.29 sys >>>>>> Max ULP: 0.501607 for x in [-18.000000:88.709999] with dx = >>>>>> 1.067100e-04 >>>>>> 69.05 real 39.68 user 29.15 sys >>>>>> Max ULP: 0.501607 for x in [-18.000000:88.709999] with dx = >>>>>> 1.067100e-04 >>>>>> 68.99 real 39.98 user 28.80 sys >>>>>> Max ULP: 0.501607 for x in [-18.000000:88.709999] with dx = >>>>>> 1.067100e-04 >>>>>> 69.02 real 39.64 user 29.16 sys >>>>>> Max ULP: 0.501607 for x in [-18.000000:88.709999] with dx = >>>>>> 1.067100e-04 >>>>>> 69.38 real 37.49 user 31.67 sys >>>>>> >>>>>> testf is a numerically intensive program that tests the >>>>>> accuracy of expf() in a tight loop. User time varies >>>>>> by ~3 seconds on my lightly loaded 2 GHz core2 duo processor. >>>>>> I'm fairly certain that the code does not suddenly grow/loose >>>>>> 6 GFLOP of operations. >>>>>> >>>>> I know it's a lot to ask but it may be something that you can help >>>>> with if you >>>>> had the time to triangulate in on the change that did it.. >>>>> I presume that since you are an "old hand" you can check out sources >>>>> at different revisions.. >>>> I was hoping that someone (possibly the person responsible) would >>>> recognize the symptoms and recommend a revision or two to revert. >>>> Otherwise, doing a binary search will take some time in that it >>>> takes 4+ hours for a buildworld/kernel cycle on my laptop. >>> If you can provide the source for the application you're running >>> above and instructions on how to compile it, I can at least give you a >>> bit of a head start :). >>> Thanks, >>> -Garrett >>> >> plus which probably just >> `cd /sys/amd64/conf config GENERIC;cd ../compile/GENERIC; make kernel` >> would be enough... > But couldn't it be libthr changes? There have been a handful of > those that have been committed recently by davidxu. Unlikely as there was no mention of there being any thread involvement. probably just replacing the kernel would be enough.. It'd be easy to find out.. see if one 2 weeks old fixes the problem :-) > HTH, > -Garrett >