From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 29 20:12:26 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A54581065672; Tue, 29 May 2012 20:12:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from adrian.chadd@gmail.com) Received: from mail-pb0-f54.google.com (mail-pb0-f54.google.com [209.85.160.54]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7213B8FC0A; Tue, 29 May 2012 20:12:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: by pbbro2 with SMTP id ro2so6734401pbb.13 for ; Tue, 29 May 2012 13:12:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=/EWi5BJhxYVkOE5e2LzsgnFYYNAiGW2swVsF18PezSw=; b=bHVE6gcSbZxgHOpnvG7KUjxMcSW0pWnz5dVlRM9bGhY6SgCplcPK424oXX7JA93l26 7bZH3Xm78ok64ofRpTWuHPMGGWiieyNSUbYydzmA/IsL2KFSLc7PJmuOkvNN9JO4oMXO w+FDu2Ef+1BdsNgIu7wTl47jd9y/GO9+NQUcdz/ws8PwG+Yt70oP0kHYk2lVAEO+FF4/ zDzxJMRQ3qRpi5UFAfUBP7MsgwSjrD4eFT6ENDVXxjpJ2dTq0ctJxzSGZXIBuPkKUjBG xaqnmWs5hgxvLFfktiGHMGu6+AOb/yhEdmkObCbnGFdJVOCZRzdJ/1728tS+ZE9SVUdM U2aA== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.68.234.35 with SMTP id ub3mr41839432pbc.8.1338322345339; Tue, 29 May 2012 13:12:25 -0700 (PDT) Sender: adrian.chadd@gmail.com Received: by 10.142.203.2 with HTTP; Tue, 29 May 2012 13:12:25 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 13:12:25 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: pcZ68Vhml3etV_DYARtpLXwtGc0 Message-ID: From: Adrian Chadd To: Alexander Motin , freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: Subject: Re: ULE/sched issues on stable/9 - why isn't preemption occuring? X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 20:12:26 -0000 .. also, if you take a look at the ktr output, the CPU timers between CPU 0 and CPU 1 are slightly different. schedgraph complains quite loudly. :-) Is that acceptable/possible? Adrian