Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 17:25:39 +0200 From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: jb@cimlogic.com.au, rb@gid.co.uk, current@FreeBSD.ORG, jdp@polstra.com Subject: Re: Spurious SIGXCPU Message-ID: <25118.897492339@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 10 Jun 1998 23:23:46 %2B1000." <199806101323.XAA21805@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <199806101323.XAA21805@godzilla.zeta.org.au>, Bruce Evans writes: >Apparently the background process makes it more likely for the foreground >process to appear to take a negative amount of time. > >Another sign of the bug is that accounting for rapid context switches >is broken again: > > $ time ./fork-benchmark 10000 > 6.10 real 0.01 user 8.33 sys if you make it always call microuptime(&p->p_switchtime); after cpu_switch() in kern_synch, does that make it any different ? -- Poul-Henning Kamp FreeBSD coreteam member phk@FreeBSD.ORG "Real hackers run -current on their laptop." "ttyv0" -- What UNIX calls a $20K state-of-the-art, 3D, hi-res color terminal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?25118.897492339>