Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 11:29:59 +0200 From: Attilio Rao <attilio@FreeBSD.org> To: Bruce Evans <brde@optusnet.com.au> Cc: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Updated rusage patch Message-ID: <46652D17.5090903@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20070604160036.N1084@besplex.bde.org> References: <20070529105856.L661@10.0.0.1> <200705291456.38515.jhb@freebsd.org> <20070529121653.P661@10.0.0.1> <20070530065423.H93410@delplex.bde.org> <20070529141342.D661@10.0.0.1> <20070530125553.G12128@besplex.bde.org> <20070529201255.X661@10.0.0.1> <20070529220936.W661@10.0.0.1> <20070530201618.T13220@besplex.bde.org> <20070530115752.F661@10.0.0.1> <20070531091419.S826@besplex.bde.org> <20070531010631.N661@10.0.0.1> <20070601154833.O4207@besplex.bde.org> <20070601014601.I799@10.0.0.1> <20070601200348.G6201@delplex.bde.org> <20070601123530.B606@10.0.0.1> <20070604160036.N1084@besplex.bde.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Bruce Evans wrote: > On Fri, 1 Jun 2007, Jeff Roberson wrote: > >> Please grep for statclock in threadlock.diff. This removes time_lock >> from statclock all together and protects the whole thing with >> thread_lock(). With this change all cpus can execute statclock() >> concurrently with sched_smp.c. This patch also has fixes for locking >> ruxagg() as well as asserts. It does not yet protect the ru copying >> in exit(). I want to figure out the synchronization issues with wait >> first. > > I don't want to get involved reviewing another large[r] patch. > > A bug turned up with the previously committed patches: the swapper > process is now shown as having a runtime of 40-47 seconds after > booting (and never changes after that), but I don't use swapping and > this process has always been shown as having a runtime of 0 seconds > before. > > The bug seems to be that proc0_post() doesn't know anything about the > rusage fields in the thread struct. Until recently, it was only missing > initialization of td_*ticks. Now it is missing initialization of > td_runtime too, so the bug is more obvious. Yes, I always wondered why proc0_post() doesn't initialize [s,i,u]ticks too. However, could you please give a look and a try to this patch: http://users.gufi.org/~rookie/works/patches/schedlock/proc_post.diff and see if it solves your problem. Thanks, Attilio
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?46652D17.5090903>