Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 18:54:20 -0600 (CST) From: "Jon Noack" <noackjr@alumni.rice.edu> To: "Tony Arcieri" <tarcieri@atmos.colostate.edu> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern sched_ule.c (fwd) Message-ID: <3683.192.168.1.9.1103072060.squirrel@192.168.1.9> In-Reply-To: <20041215001222.GB9957@flash.atmos.colostate.edu> References: <20041214222444.GA9668@flash.atmos.colostate.edu> <3308.192.168.1.9.1103065723.squirrel@192.168.1.9> <20041215001222.GB9957@flash.atmos.colostate.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Tony Arcieri wrote: > On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 05:08:43PM -0600, Jon Noack wrote: >> I thought about trying this last night when I saw that ULE was >> resurrected. Make sure you also grab kern_sig.c: >> http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-src/2004-December/036757.html >> >> I can't say whether those 3 files are all you need, just that I would >> also include kern_sig.c... ;-) > > Rebuilt with kern_sig.c from -CURRENT, everything seems fine, as far as I > can tell. Are there really any substantial changes in kern_sig.c and > kern_switch.c that would affect the stability of 5_STABLE (and does > UMA in 5_STABLE ensure thati proc_fini() won't be called?) I don't know about kern_switch.c, but the change in kern_sig.c fixes #2 on Jeff Roberson's list of bugs in ULE (from a few days ago): http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2004-December/044332.html > I'd just contend that in the case of my system, 5_STABLE with the 4BSD > scheduler is not stable, or at least the script I'm running is somehow > exhausting system resources to the point that the system becomes unusable, > and this problem isn't exhibited with the ULE scheduler. Regardless, the > script was causing the 5.3-RELEASE GENERIC kernel to panic, and rendered > the system completely inaccessible with a kernel built from the latest (as > of about 5 days ago) RELENG_5 kernel with the 4BSD scheduler. > > So, I'd be very grateful if ULE could be merged into RELENG_5 as it would > dramatically improve the stability of at least my server. Has anyone else > with a dual amd64 system had problems like this post 5.3-RELEASE? I know > crashes under heavy MySQL load on dual amd64 systems were a problem > before, but I thought that had been resolved. I think removing the #error and putting a note on boot (and in UPDATING) that it may still be unstable is a good idea. However, Scott Long has expressed reservations (http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2004-December/044341.html) and his opinion counts orders of magnitude more than mine. Jon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3683.192.168.1.9.1103072060.squirrel>