Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern sched_ule.c (fwd)

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_at_freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe_at_freebsd.org"
>