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/zero >/dev/null & >> # n=$(sysctl -n kern.smp.cpus) >> # i=1; while [ $i -le $n ]; do bzip2 -9 </dev/zero >/dev/null & i=$(($i+1)); >> done >> # top >> >> For dual core system, I see that idprio'd bzip2 takes all cycles of first >> core >> and two "normal" bzip2's share cycles of second core each taking ~50% of CPU >> time. >> >> It is expected that idprio'd bzip2 get no CPU time at all and each of >> "normal" bzip2's >> get ~100% of single CPU core for such setup. > > This works as expected for stable/10.
Seems to work as expected on head as well. Tested on a 6-core physical system and a 2-core bhyve VM. # ps axwwl | fgrep bzip2 0 943 935 0 129 5 10564 2196 - RN 1 0:00.00 idprio 5 bzip2 -9 0 945 935 0 108 5 18332 9676 - RN 1 1:16.15 bzip2 -9 0 946 935 0 108 5 18332 9676 - RN 1 1:16.34 bzip2 -9 idprio isn't even able to exec bzip2. # ps axwwl | fgrep bzip2 0 28986 86816 0 129 5 18348 2324 - RN 17 0:00.02 bzip2 -9 0 28988 86816 0 106 5 18348 9680 - RN 17 1:27.25 bzip2 -9 0 28989 86816 0 106 5 18348 9680 - RN 17 1:27.86 bzip2 -9 0 28990 86816 0 108 5 18348 9680 - RN 17 1:35.50 bzip2 -9 0 28991 86816 0 106 5 18348 9680 - RN 17 1:27.00 bzip2 -9 0 28992 86816 0 106 5 18348 9680 - RN 17 1:25.83 bzip2 -9 0 28993 86816 0 106 5 18348 9680 - RN 17 1:26.76 bzip2 -9 -- Andriy Gapon _______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"