Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2012 09:12:55 +0700 From: Erich <erichfreebsdlist@ovitrap.com> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Cc: =?utf-8?B?0JzQvtC80YfQuNC7INCY0LLQsNC90L7Qsg==?= <momchil@xaxo.eu> Subject: Re: ULE Scheduler Message-ID: <12782903.WNKlBIO9Im@x220.ovitrap.com> In-Reply-To: <86fwa8szos.wl%momchil@xaxo.eu> References: <86fwa8szos.wl%momchil@xaxo.eu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?12782903.WNKlBIO9Im>