BTW, I checked in a change that should make Unqueue2 listen to notifiers -- but I still think it might be better to just remove Unqueue2 altogether.
Eddie On 06/23/2011 07:11 PM, R H wrote: > Hi Lars, > > The same script works fine when replacing Unqueue2 with Unqueue without > changing the InfiniteSource configurations. So I don't think it is a timer > issue. As Beyers pointed out and looking at the source code, Unqueue2 does > not listen to queue empty signals sent from the NotifierQueue and keeps > checking for packets. > > Regards, > Raja > > > ________________________________ > From: Lars Bro<lars...@gmail.com> > To: R H<rajamha...@yahoo.com> > Cc: cl...@pdos.csail.mit.edu > Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 1:51 AM > Subject: Re: [Click] click 1.8.0 Unqueue2 -> 100% CPU usage > > Hello, Raja > > I think, this is because of the way Click timers work. A Click timer > is *very* precise, and this is achieved by so to say "spinning on > gettimeofday()" For example, if You want to sleep 753.332 milisecond, > it wil sleep normally for the first 750 miliseconds, and then > busy-wait on the timer for the last three miliseconds. I dont know the > threshold, but you are requesting something to take place every > 1000/75 = 13 miliseconds, which may mean that the process is > busy-waiting all the time, using all of the CPU. You can try changing > the 75 to below 50, I guess the limit is 20 msec. > > You must remember that all other timers in Click are still just as > precise, so the only effect is that the Click process uses CPU. Click > itself does fine. You must also remember that the time-sharing > scheduler on your system will soon find out that the Click process can > easily be scheduled out in favor of other user processes. > > You can try to do the same when a heavy compilation is also running on > that processor, and then watch the accuracy of the Click process. You > should come to the result that even when compiling, the Click process > is very accurate. > > yours, > Lars Bro > > > On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 2:41 AM, R H<rajamha...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Using the following sample configuration, I get 100% CPU usage even after >> the InfiniteSource finishes sending the 100 packets; but if I replace >> Unqueue2 with Unqueue everything works well. Looked at the documentation >> and they both default to pulling 1 packet when scheduled until there is >> nothing to pull. What am I missing? >> >> s :: InfiniteSource(\<0800>, RATE 75, LIMIT 100, STOP false); //random >> numbers as long as it does not stop! >> >> q :: NotifierQueue(200); >> uq :: Unqueue2(); >> p :: Print(); >> >> d :: Discard; >> >> s->q->uq->p->d; >> >> Thanks, >> Raja >> _______________________________________________ >> click mailing list >> click@amsterdam.lcs.mit.edu >> https://amsterdam.lcs.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/click >> > _______________________________________________ > click mailing list > click@amsterdam.lcs.mit.edu > https://amsterdam.lcs.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/click _______________________________________________ click mailing list click@amsterdam.lcs.mit.edu https://amsterdam.lcs.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/click
