Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 15:32:14 -0500 (EST) From: Jeff Roberson <jroberson@chesapeake.net> To: Scott Long <scottl@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern sched_ule.c (fwd) Message-ID: <20041215152931.H60504@mail.chesapeake.net> In-Reply-To: <41BF9130.9070907@freebsd.org> References: <20041214222444.GA9668@flash.atmos.colostate.edu> <3308.192.168.1.9.1103065723.squirrel@192.168.1.9> <20041215001222.GB9957@flash.atmos.colostate.edu> <41BF9130.9070907@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004, Scott Long wrote: > Jon Noack wrote: > > Tony Arcieri wrote: > > > >>On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 05:08:43PM -0600, Jon Noack wrote: > >> > >>>I thought about trying this last night when I saw that ULE was > >>>resurrected. Make sure you also grab kern_sig.c: > >>>http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-src/2004-December/036757.html > >>> > >>>I can't say whether those 3 files are all you need, just that I would > >>>also include kern_sig.c... ;-) > >> > >>Rebuilt with kern_sig.c from -CURRENT, everything seems fine, as far as I > >>can tell. Are there really any substantial changes in kern_sig.c and > >>kern_switch.c that would affect the stability of 5_STABLE (and does > >>UMA in 5_STABLE ensure thati proc_fini() won't be called?) > > > > > > I don't know about kern_switch.c, but the change in kern_sig.c fixes #2 on > > Jeff Roberson's list of bugs in ULE (from a few days ago): > > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2004-December/044332.html > > > > > >>I'd just contend that in the case of my system, 5_STABLE with the 4BSD > >>scheduler is not stable, or at least the script I'm running is somehow > >>exhausting system resources to the point that the system becomes unusable, > >>and this problem isn't exhibited with the ULE scheduler. Regardless, the > >>script was causing the 5.3-RELEASE GENERIC kernel to panic, and rendered > >>the system completely inaccessible with a kernel built from the latest (as > >>of about 5 days ago) RELENG_5 kernel with the 4BSD scheduler. > >> > >>So, I'd be very grateful if ULE could be merged into RELENG_5 as it would > >>dramatically improve the stability of at least my server. Has anyone else > >>with a dual amd64 system had problems like this post 5.3-RELEASE? I know > >>crashes under heavy MySQL load on dual amd64 systems were a problem > >>before, but I thought that had been resolved. > > > > > > I think removing the #error and putting a note on boot (and in UPDATING) > > that it may still be unstable is a good idea. However, Scott Long has > > expressed reservations > > (http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2004-December/044341.html) > > and his opinion counts orders of magnitude more than mine. > > > > Jon > > > > I'm definitely not against these fixes going into RELENG_5, but I would > like to see some significant testing be applied to them in HEAD first, > especially to changes that are not confined to just sched_ule.c (and > sched_4bsd.c). Can I commit changes that are restricted to sched_ule.c? It certainly can't make things any worse than they are on RELENG_5 now. We can leave the #error in until it's really tested on head. That way only people who remove that line of code can use it. > > Scott > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20041215152931.H60504>