Re: lock-ups due to the scheduler

2000-04-28 Thread Richard Seaman, Jr.
On Fri, Apr 28, 2000 at 06:13:32PM -0400, Brian Fundakowski Feldman wrote: > On Fri, 28 Apr 2000, Richard Seaman, Jr. wrote: > > > There may be additional issues with the scheduler, though they may not > > be related to the issue you have. Check www.freebsd.org/~dick/sched.descr > > I was under

Re: lock-ups due to the scheduler

2000-04-28 Thread Brian Fundakowski Feldman
On Fri, 28 Apr 2000, Richard Seaman, Jr. wrote: > There may be additional issues with the scheduler, though they may not > be related to the issue you have. Check www.freebsd.org/~dick/sched.descr > I was under the impression that Peter Dufault had re-assumed this matter, > but not much has happ

Re: lock-ups due to the scheduler

2000-04-28 Thread Luoqi Chen
> There may be additional issues with the scheduler, though they may not > be related to the issue you have. Check www.freebsd.org/~dick/sched.descr > I was under the impression that Peter Dufault had re-assumed this matter, > but not much has happened on most of the issues. > Could you add the

Re: lock-ups due to the scheduler

2000-04-28 Thread Richard Seaman, Jr.
There may be additional issues with the scheduler, though they may not be related to the issue you have. Check www.freebsd.org/~dick/sched.descr I was under the impression that Peter Dufault had re-assumed this matter, but not much has happened on most of the issues. -- Richard Seaman, Jr.

Re: lock-ups due to the scheduler

2000-04-27 Thread Luoqi Chen
> The deeper problem seems to be that for whatever the process does, it > never accrues enough estcpu to classify it as hoggy, as a process I > start with a niceness of -20 cycles through priorities 10 (in the > very beginning) and 27 at the very highest. This _shouldn't_ be too > much of a probl

Re: lock-ups due to the scheduler

2000-04-27 Thread Brian Fundakowski Feldman
On Thu, 27 Apr 2000, Luoqi Chen wrote: > This is quite interesting. I'm no scheduler expert, but my understanding > is priority < PUSER won't degrade and is only set in kernel mode after > waking up from a sleep. In user mode, processes should always have priority > p_usrpri >= PUSER, it is obvio

Re: lock-ups due to the scheduler

2000-04-26 Thread Luoqi Chen
This is quite interesting. I'm no scheduler expert, but my understanding is priority < PUSER won't degrade and is only set in kernel mode after waking up from a sleep. In user mode, processes should always have priority p_usrpri >= PUSER, it is obviously not true for a negative nice value: >