Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 09:12:55 -0400 From: Randall Stewart <rrs@cisco.com> To: Ivan Voras <ivoras@fer.hr> Cc: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8rgrav?= <des@des.no>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: CPU utilization Message-ID: <461E3057.6000307@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <461E2E5D.1090409@fer.hr> References: <461E0078.3050001@cisco.com> <20070412114344.G64803@fledge.watson.org> <461E1D4E.3090806@cisco.com> <evl95h$969$1@sea.gmane.org> <461E2C07.5000503@cisco.com> <86slb5ycmd.fsf@dwp.des.no> <461E2E5D.1090409@fer.hr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ivan Voras wrote: > Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: >> Randall Stewart <rrs@cisco.com> writes: >>> Sure.. dumb question though.. whats the magic cookie to pin >>> something on a cpu.. is it a system call or is there a "shell" tool >>> that will do it? >> >> Neither. There is a kernel function to tie a thread to a CPU, but it >> is not exported to userland. > > I was thinking about the kernel part, but now, thinking more, it's > probably very non-trivial to do. I though that using sched_bind() could > do it, but this only works if there's a specific thread created for some > task - I don't know how can something like 'a network stack', which > consists of myriad of callbacks and asynchrounsly called functions, be > pinned. Sorry for the noise. :) > > Not noise .. Anything that gives a suggestion on how to tweak things is good.. and I learn more :-D I am going to try LOCK_PROFILING next.. on the most drastic set of differences.. and see what I see.. I have always not liked the sender locks I have in place.. the reader side worked out real cool.. but the sender did not :-( May need to re-think these... or I might find some other surprise ;-D R -- Randall Stewart NSSTG - Cisco Systems Inc. 803-345-0369 <or> 803-317-4952 (cell)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?461E3057.6000307>