Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 09:23:12 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, Aminuddin Abdullah <amin.scg@gmail.com> Subject: Re: V7 High CPU Usage on swi5:+, what is this process? Message-ID: <200803180923.13032.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20080318130241.J17188@fledge.watson.org> References: <20080210120013.4C3D116A421@hub.freebsd.org> <200803180845.28959.jhb@freebsd.org> <20080318130241.J17188@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tuesday 18 March 2008 09:04:05 am Robert Watson wrote: > On Tue, 18 Mar 2008, John Baldwin wrote: > >> '+' is used in a swi name to indicate that the names of the interrupts > >> to put in the thread name are too long, and the code looks like it was > >> written under the assumption that at least one name would fit. It > >> sounds like in this case, none fit. We should fix this code, but in the > >> mean time, what you might consider doing is hacking intr_event_update() > >> in kern_intr.c to print out overflowing names to the console using > >> printf(9) so you can at least see what they are. This is the somewhat > >> suspect bit of code: > > > > The code is not suspect as p_comm is of fixed length. Someone just used > > too long of a name for a swi handler. > > I was wondering whether we might not do better to put as much in as we can > but truncate with a '*', so you at least get a fractional swi name. Under > what situations do we use a single ithread for multiple swi's? The softclock one gets overloaded with some tty handlers. This code is also just generic ithread code common to swi's and hardware interrupts. -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200803180923.13032.jhb>