Hi!
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/null &
# n=$(sysctl -n kern.smp.cpus)
# i=1; while [ $i -le $n ]; do bzip2 -9 /dev/null & i=$(($i+1));
done
# top
For dual core system, I
On 26.12.2017 16:10, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
> Is idprio(1) broken in stable/11?
>
> As root, start one bzip2 instance with idprio and one additional bzip2
> intance per CPU core:
>
> # idprio 5 bzip2 -9 /dev/null &
> # n=$(sysctl -n kern.smp.cpus)
> # i=1; while [ $i -le $n ]; do bzip2 -9 /dev/
On 26/12/2017 11:18, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
> On 26.12.2017 16:10, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
>
>> Is idprio(1) broken in stable/11?
>>
>> As root, start one bzip2 instance with idprio and one additional bzip2
>> intance per CPU core:
>>
>> # idprio 5 bzip2 -9 /dev/null &
>> # n=$(sysctl -n kern.smp.
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/null &
>>> # n=$(sysctl -n kern.smp.cpus)
>>> # i=1; while [ $i -le $n ]; do bzi
This update spans the clang upgrade to 5.0.1 and
ld is listed in _ERROR_CMD. But I've no direct
evidence that these contributed. Cleaning out
/usr/obj/amd64_clang/amd64.amd64/ and rebuilding
instead of having an incremental build did not
reproduce the problem. I provide the information
anyway, in c
