Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2011 00:58:59 +0800 From: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> To: Nathan Whitehorn <nwhitehorn@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: how are callouts handled in cpu_idle() ? Message-ID: <CAJ-VmokF93yVj-52sH9Jc1OpOg9cDGh84fMcbWeyzNgp1xwKDQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4E8C73C5.3020809@freebsd.org> References: <CAJ-Vmoksy68YmTXAQ1S87-%2BFMUHjZ-K0TOV0OUm3hQpYGZhXHw@mail.gmail.com> <4E86DC86.3040204@FreeBSD.org> <4E8C73C5.3020809@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 5 October 2011 23:12, Nathan Whitehorn <nwhitehorn@freebsd.org> wrote: > Can you explain why the critical section is there in more detail? It seems > like all of our problems arise because of it. It seems to make some of my MIPS cases more problematic. I don't know about the i386. DES reports that his weird/crashing fileserver issues are fixed by setting idletick=1. I'd love to hear from other users who have fixed their HEAD/9.0 issues by setting kernel.eventtimer.idletick=1. I have a feeling that some corner cases in interrupt handling and task scheduling are now (more) exposed due to the timer code in 9. I'm hoping to replicate some issues on my i386 eeepc (which uses ACPI for halting, rather than HLT) and see if that also contributes. Adrian
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAJ-VmokF93yVj-52sH9Jc1OpOg9cDGh84fMcbWeyzNgp1xwKDQ>