Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2017 19:41:18 +0700 From: Eugene Grosbein <eugen@grosbein.net> To: Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org>, FreeBSD Stable <freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org> Cc: FreeBSD Hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: idprio(1) broken Message-ID: <5A42436E.9060502@grosbein.net> In-Reply-To: <92a254fb-8066-4930-e4ad-f4fedb0e84d0@FreeBSD.org> References: <5A421212.4040703@grosbein.net> <5A4213DC.20508@grosbein.net> <92a254fb-8066-4930-e4ad-f4fedb0e84d0@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 26.12.2017 18:37, Andriy Gapon wrote: >>> Is idprio(1) broken in stable/11? >>> >>> As root, start one bzip2 instance with idprio and one additional bzip2 intance per CPU core: >>> >>> # idprio 5 bzip2 -9 </dev/zero >/dev/null & >>> # n=$(sysctl -n kern.smp.cpus) >>> # i=1; while [ $i -le $n ]; do bzip2 -9 </dev/zero >/dev/null & i=$(($i+1)); done >>> # top >>> >>> For dual core system, I see that idprio'd bzip2 takes all cycles of first core >>> and two "normal" bzip2's share cycles of second core each taking ~50% of CPU time. >>> >>> It is expected that idprio'd bzip2 get no CPU time at all and each of "normal" bzip2's >>> get ~100% of single CPU core for such setup. >> >> This works as expected for stable/10. > > Seems to work as expected on head as well. I have a report that head r323607 has the problem and head r326729 has not. I can't check it myself as I have do not run head yet.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5A42436E.9060502>