From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jun 7 02:13:03 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3ED9F106566C for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2012 02:13:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from erichfreebsdlist@ovitrap.com) Received: from alogreentechnologies.com (alogreentechnologies.com [67.212.226.44]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E524B8FC14 for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2012 02:13:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from x220.ovitrap.com ([122.129.201.75]) (authenticated bits=0) by alogreentechnologies.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id q572Cv8j002879; Wed, 6 Jun 2012 20:12:59 -0600 From: Erich To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2012 09:12:55 +0700 Message-ID: <12782903.WNKlBIO9Im@x220.ovitrap.com> User-Agent: KMail/4.8.3 (Linux/3.3.7-1.fc16.x86_64; KDE/4.8.3; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <86fwa8szos.wl%momchil@xaxo.eu> References: <86fwa8szos.wl%momchil@xaxo.eu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Cc: =?utf-8?B?0JzQvtC80YfQuNC7INCY0LLQsNC90L7Qsg==?= Subject: Re: ULE Scheduler X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2012 02:13:03 -0000 Hi, On 07 June 2012 3:01:07 =D0=9C=D0=BE=D0=BC=D1=87=D0=B8=D0=BB =D0=98=D0=B2= =D0=B0=D0=BD=D0=BE=D0=B2 wrote: > temperature. It was constantly increasing from about 33 C. I took a > look at top and saw that both processes were wildly jumping accross > the cores, i.e. CPU0 and CPU1. >=20 > So before reading all the papers about the ULE scheduler and the > source code, I would like to as a simple question: is it that stupid?= maybe, maybe not. It could be that the difference is minor as the cache= for both kernels is in the same chip. >=20 > I mean, there are just 2 processes running (except of top, X and > ... which should be scheduled occasionally) on 2 cores of one physica= l > processor. Why sould each be scheduled on a different core each time?= >=20 > I did cpuset to pin each to a specific core and got to about a > constant temperature of 72 C. I am affraid to "cpuset -l 0,1 -p <...>= " > both of them since I might again get at 100 C. This would be the interesting point? Did it happen because of the dirt = or because or the scheduler. >=20 > Is there some remedy? I think that the only remedy available is the one you applied. Erich