Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 11:39:48 -0500 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Cc: "freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org" <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>, Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org>, Ryan Stone <rysto32@gmail.com> Subject: Re: can the scheduler decide to schedule an interrupted but runnable thread on another CPU core? What are the implications for code? Message-ID: <201402141139.49158.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <CAJ-VmondWeDjSepQOmNtC1h7wZG=ZQax0tHPMv%2BSSc7O2KZ3dQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAJ-Vmo=7Nz1jqXy%2BrTQ7u9_ZP7jeFOKUJxU1O51tYJjvTUmWTg@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ-Vmommd7w_7RtkqgFGt%2BCVccqcsd8QLNOSXdXSRmmBPKEyYg@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ-VmondWeDjSepQOmNtC1h7wZG=ZQax0tHPMv%2BSSc7O2KZ3dQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Friday, February 14, 2014 4:22:34 am Adrian Chadd wrote: > Ok, so now I remember the other odd thing. > > I was seeing the sending context(s) jumping from one CPU to another > during flowtable_insert_common(), around the locking bits. > > But I thread pinned all the sender user threads! > > So, why would the senders still be scheduled on other CPUs if I've > pinned the userland threads? > > (and yes, I verified that the userland threads weren't moving around.) Can you clarify a bit? It's not clear how sender thraeds differ from userland threads differ from sender user threads. (I.e. one reading is that these are all the same thing and should thus all be pinned (I assume you mean using cpuset to bind them to specific cores rather than sched_pin)) -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201402141139.49158.jhb>