Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 06:48:05 -0800 From: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@icir.org> To: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: interesting(?) data on network interrupt servicing Message-ID: <20060323064805.B67264@xorpc.icir.org> In-Reply-To: <4422B3C8.3080303@samsco.org>; from scottl@samsco.org on Thu, Mar 23, 2006 at 07:42:16AM -0700 References: <20060322122906.A41691@xorpc.icir.org> <20060323001555.GA1811@tin.it> <20060323142518.GA1308@tin.it> <20060323063139.A67037@xorpc.icir.org> <4422B3C8.3080303@samsco.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Mar 23, 2006 at 07:42:16AM -0700, Scott Long wrote: > Luigi Rizzo wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 23, 2006 at 03:25:18PM +0100, Paolo Pisati wrote: ... > >>ok, i updated my CURRENT and rerun the tests (and while here > >>i disabled SMP): > >> > >>phk's optimization to cpu ticks calculation shaved 4k ticks, > > > > this makes it a very good candidate for MFC when 6.1 is out ? ... > I haven't been paying close enough attention, have all of the calcru > problems and other side effects been fixed from phk's work? we should ask phk. As far as i remember the only "problem" is/was that the sys/user times are computed as if the cpu were running at its max speed. But this is in fact a good thing because it is a more consistent measurement of the cost of the CPU work, which decouples us from having to take care of variable cpu speed. luigi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060323064805.B67264>