Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 12:35:14 -0800 From: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@FreeBSD.ORG> To: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> Cc: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@icir.org>, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: interesting(?) data on network interrupt servicing Message-ID: <44230682.4010500@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4422B5A5.8040006@samsco.org> References: <20060322122906.A41691@xorpc.icir.org> <20060323001555.GA1811@tin.it> <20060323142518.GA1308@tin.it> <20060323063139.A67037@xorpc.icir.org> <4422B3C8.3080303@samsco.org> <20060323064805.B67264@xorpc.icir.org> <4422B5A5.8040006@samsco.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Scott Long wrote: > Luigi Rizzo wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 23, 2006 at 07:42:16AM -0700, Scott Long wrote: >> >>> Luigi Rizzo wrote: >>> >>>> On Thu, Mar 23, 2006 at 03:25:18PM +0100, Paolo Pisati wrote: >> >> ... >> >>>>> ok, i updated my CURRENT and rerun the tests (and while here i >>>>> disabled SMP): >>>>> >>>>> phk's optimization to cpu ticks calculation shaved 4k ticks, >>>> >>>> this makes it a very good candidate for MFC when 6.1 is out ? >> >> ... >> >>> I haven't been paying close enough attention, have all of the calcru >>> problems and other side effects been fixed from phk's work? >> >> >> we should ask phk. As far as i remember the only "problem" >> is/was that the sys/user times are computed as if the >> cpu were running at its max speed. But this is in fact >> a good thing because it is a more consistent measurement of >> the cost of the CPU work, which decouples us from having >> to take care of variable cpu speed. >> >> luigi > > No, I'm talking about all of the resulting problems with processes > generating calcru messages on the console. I still see them here with ACPI-safe TC. -Maxim
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?44230682.4010500>