On Fri, 4 Jan 2008, Peter Jeremy wrote: > On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 03:31:34AM -1000, Jeff Roberson wrote: >> ah, I'm sorry. the new line with PRI_FIFO should read PRI_FIFO_BIT. I >> tested the patch but not with any idle prio tasks that run forever. > > That seems to work and I don't see any problems with it. There were > seven watchdog restarts over about 3/4 hr whilst the system was doing > a buildworld but this is probably not completely unreasonable. This is a boinc watchdog? The client just didn't get to run for too long during the buildworld? > > One oddity I noticed is that setiathome (unlike einstein_at_home) has one > thread that seems to have lost the idle bit (though that thread appears > to just idle). This is equivalent to a process increasing its priority > so I wouldn't have expected it. If you notice the second thread is sitting in nanosleep. In BSD there is a static priority boost after sleeping that is revoked when you wake up. This can also happen from priority propagation if you grab a lock that a high priority thread wants. > > PID USERNAME PRI NICE SIZE RES STATE TIME WCPU COMMAND > 51503 boinc 171 i31 39944K 33052K RUN 3:43 100.00% setiathome-5.27.i > 51503 boinc 8 19 39944K 33052K nanslp 3:43 0.00% setiathome-5.27.i3 > 10 root 171 ki31 0K 8K RUN 2:51 0.00% idle > 4 root -8 - 0K 8K - 0:54 0.00% g_down > > Let me know if you really want to get boinc working for yourself. If there are any further complaints I will. Is there any chance you could also try it with nice +20 or nice +10 and report how the system behaves? Thanks! Jeff > > -- > Peter Jeremy > Please excuse any delays as the result of my ISP's inability to implement > an MTA that is either RFC2821-compliant or matches their claimed behaviour. >Received on Thu Jan 03 2008 - 22:35:45 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:24 UTC