From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Aug 3 16:44:57 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43E2A16A4CE for ; Tue, 3 Aug 2004 16:44:57 +0000 (GMT) Received: from pooker.samsco.org (pooker.samsco.org [168.103.85.57]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D379C43D31 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 2004 16:44:56 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Received: from [192.168.0.201] ([192.168.0.201]) (authenticated bits=0) by pooker.samsco.org (8.12.11/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i73GqQIM040535; Tue, 3 Aug 2004 10:52:27 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Message-ID: <410FC08A.7060702@samsco.org> Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 10:42:50 -0600 From: Scott Long User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.7.1) Gecko/20040801 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Evan Dower References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=3.8 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.63 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on pooker.samsco.org cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Stability? X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 16:44:57 -0000 Evan Dower wrote: > % uptime > 9:23AM up 1 day, 15:42, 6 users, load averages: 0,98 1,19 1,25 > > With a recent cvsup (and all the rebuilding and installing involved) I > have noticed what seems to be an improvement in stability. I must have > missed any postings about it. Any, recent cvsup means about an hour > before this: > > % uname -a > FreeBSD lojak.washington.edu 5.2-CURRENT FreeBSD 5.2-CURRENT #0: Sun > Aug 1 16:06:05 PDT 2004 > root@lojak.washington.edu:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/DEBUG i386 > > I noticed that my kernel has now started saying (in the dmesg): > WARNING: Kernel preemption is disabled, expect reduced performance. > I turned off normal preemption a few days ago in order to cover up the stability problems until the responsible parties (including myself) get them fixed. It is just a hack for now. > Of course, I have WITNESS turned on in my debug kernel so I already > expect reduced performance. Is this message suggesting that I put > FULL_PREEMPTION in my kernel? I was under the impression that it was > only useful for seeing where stuff broke. Is stuff so good now that it > will improve performance without significant effect on stability? Or > perhaps it is indicating that PREEMPTION is #undef'd? I didn't #undef it > so if this is the case it must have been changed upstream. You likely do not want to turn on FULL_PREEMPTION. If you want the old behavior, edit /sys/i386/include/param.h and reenable the PREEMPTION definition. Scott