At Wed, 13 Jun 2012 17:49:15 +0300,
Daniel Kalchev wrote:
On 12.06.12 16:08, Momchil Ivanov wrote:
So the L2 cache is shared between both cores and hence it's size does
not matter at all?
If the cache is shared between both cores then it does not matter on
which core the process
On 12.06.12 16:08, Momchil Ivanov wrote:
So the L2 cache is shared between both cores and hence it's size does
not matter at all?
If the cache is shared between both cores then it does not matter on
which core the process runs, as long as data is in teh case. The cache
size is irrelevant.
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 09:06:26PM +0200, wrote:
At Sat, 09 Jun 2012 20:23:44 -0700,
Doug Barton wrote:
On 06/06/2012 18:16, Doug Barton wrote:
On 06/06/2012 18:01, wrote:
Is there some remedy?
Try the 4BSD scheduler.
Did
?? ?? momc...@xaxo.eu wrote:
I compiled the same kernel with the 4BSD scheduler today and it seems
that the processes jump accross cores too.
What exactly is the problem that you're seeing? Do you have
performance problems? If so, then they're probably *not*
caused by processes
At Tue, 12 Jun 2012 11:11:36 +0200 (CEST),
Oliver Fromme wrote:
?? ?? momc...@xaxo.eu wrote:
I compiled the same kernel with the 4BSD scheduler today and it seems
that the processes jump accross cores too.
What exactly is the problem that you're seeing? Do you have
of quoted text
From: Daniel Kalchev dan...@digsys.bg
Subject: Re: ULE Scheduler
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 12:19:43 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: 4fd07ea0.8020...@digsys.bg
On 07.06.12 11:16, Momchil Ivanov wrote:
Though, it was strange seeing both processes hopping around... I will
probably go
At Tue, 12 Jun 2012 14:03:10 +0200 (CEST),
Oliver Fromme wrote:
Momchil Ivanov momc...@xaxo.eu wrote:
I was just curious why both processes are hopping around,
because I would naively think that should not happen.
I'll try to explain ...
There are always many more processes and
At Sat, 09 Jun 2012 20:23:44 -0700,
Doug Barton wrote:
On 06/06/2012 18:16, Doug Barton wrote:
On 06/06/2012 18:01, Момчил Иванов wrote:
Is there some remedy?
Try the 4BSD scheduler.
Did you ever try this? Did it help?
I compiled the same kernel with the 4BSD scheduler today and it
On 06/06/2012 18:16, Doug Barton wrote:
On 06/06/2012 18:01, Момчил Иванов wrote:
Is there some remedy?
Try the 4BSD scheduler.
Did you ever try this? Did it help?
--
This .signature sanitized for your protection
___
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 2:29 AM, Momchil Ivanov momc...@xaxo.eu wrote:
At Fri, 8 Jun 2012 00:54:15 +0200,
Martin Sugioarto wrote:
[1 text/plain; UTF-8 (quoted-printable)]
Am Thu, 07 Jun 2012 03:01:07 +0200
schrieb Момчил Иванов momc...@xaxo.eu:
Is there some remedy?
Hi,
I
Am Fri, 8 Jun 2012 08:04:12 +0200
schrieb Andreas Nilsson andrn...@gmail.com:
My t61p also had overheating problems with fbsd, but never in linux.
For me the fan control was somewhat broken: I had to turn off
auto-mode and set max myself to get any heavy usage out of it.
You might want to
Did anyone ever file a PR for this kind of thing?
Adrian
On 8 June 2012 10:07, Martin Sugioarto mar...@sugioarto.com wrote:
Am Fri, 8 Jun 2012 08:04:12 +0200
schrieb Andreas Nilsson andrn...@gmail.com:
My t61p also had overheating problems with fbsd, but never in linux.
For me the fan
At Thu, 07 Jun 2012 09:12:55 +0700,
Erich wrote:
Hi,
On 07 June 2012 3:01:07 Момчил Иванов wrote:
temperature. It was constantly increasing from about 33 C. I took a
look at top and saw that both processes were wildly jumping accross
the cores, i.e. CPU0 and CPU1.
So before
Hi,
On 07 June 2012 10:16:07 Momchil Ivanov wrote:
At Thu, 07 Jun 2012 09:12:55 +0700,
Erich wrote:
I've repeated the same experiment just now, setting both processes on
both cores with cpuset. The temperature got to about 72-74 C, so the
two small pieces of dirt that came out, the fresh
On 07.06.12 11:16, Momchil Ivanov wrote:
Though, it was strange seeing both processes hopping around... I will
probably go back to the 4BSD scheduler if my laptop does another
self-shutdown in the next few days as Doug suggested.
You never run just two processes on FreeBSD, ever. The kernel
Am Thu, 07 Jun 2012 03:01:07 +0200
schrieb Момчил Иванов momc...@xaxo.eu:
Is there some remedy?
Hi,
I remember this series, I've had a T60p and when I compiled world, I
placed a fan in front of it to cool it down from 100°C. The difference
with T60p was that it simply shut off reaching 101°C.
At Fri, 8 Jun 2012 00:54:15 +0200,
Martin Sugioarto wrote:
[1 text/plain; UTF-8 (quoted-printable)]
Am Thu, 07 Jun 2012 03:01:07 +0200
schrieb Момчил Иванов momc...@xaxo.eu:
Is there some remedy?
Hi,
I remember this series, I've had a T60p and when I compiled world, I
placed a fan
On 06/06/2012 18:01, Момчил Иванов wrote:
Is there some remedy?
Try the 4BSD scheduler.
--
This .signature sanitized for your protection
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To
Hi,
On 07 June 2012 3:01:07 Момчил Иванов wrote:
temperature. It was constantly increasing from about 33 C. I took a
look at top and saw that both processes were wildly jumping accross
the cores, i.e. CPU0 and CPU1.
So before reading all the papers about the ULE scheduler and the
source
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 11:35 PM, Brian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I see this is the standard recommendation for those of us using SMP. I am
wondering how far away we are from that becoming standard, since on even
amd64, I see the older scheduler is still in place?
I believe the current plan is
Brian wrote:
I see this is the standard recommendation for those of us using SMP. I
am wondering how far away we are from that becoming standard, since on
even amd64, I see the older scheduler is still in place?
It *is* the default scheduler for RELENG_7 and -HEAD for most architectures.
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 10:14:50PM +0100, Rene Ladan wrote:
Hi,
I was trying the ULE scheduler again on my single i686 5.4PRE laptop,
but it causes the kernel to freeze after some time (=30 minutes): the
kernel does not even respond to opening/closing the lid when booting
verbose (normally
On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 10:21:02PM +, Nuno Teixeira wrote:
Hello to all,
I'm runinng RELENG_5 and I noticed that ULE scheduler is broken.
Shouldn't this be documented in UPDATING?
Yes. I thought it was, but you are correct in asserting that it isn't.
Ceri
--
Only two things are
On Wednesday 08 December 2004 04:21 pm, Nuno Teixeira wrote:
Hello to all,
I'm runinng RELENG_5 and I noticed that ULE scheduler is broken.
Shouldn't this be documented in UPDATING?
Thanks very much,
Nuno Teixeira
It's documented in errata:
(1 Nov 2004) The ULE scheduler
Can you describe advantages of using SCHED_ULE on UP? or just link or
something.
Michael Nottebrock wrote:
On Thursday, 11. November 2004 16:42, Ronald Klop wrote:
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 09:29:08 -0600, Thomas T. Veldhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I just read in the release notes that 5.3-RELEASE
On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 09:29:08AM -0600, Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
I just read in the release notes that 5.3-RELEASE has the new ULE
scheduler available, but that 4BSD is the default scheduler. I thought
I read messages in freebsd-current indicating that the option to use ULE
was
Brooks Davis wrote:
On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 09:29:08AM -0600, Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
I just read in the release notes that 5.3-RELEASE has the new ULE
scheduler available, but that 4BSD is the default scheduler. I thought
I read messages in freebsd-current indicating that the option to
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 09:29:08 -0600, Thomas T. Veldhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I just read in the release notes that 5.3-RELEASE has the new ULE
scheduler available, but that 4BSD is the default scheduler. I thought
I read messages in freebsd-current indicating that the option to use ULE
was
Brooks Davis wrote:
On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 09:29:08AM -0600, Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
I just read in the release notes that 5.3-RELEASE has the new ULE
scheduler available, but that 4BSD is the default scheduler. I thought
I read messages in freebsd-current indicating that the option to
On Thursday, 11. November 2004 16:42, Ronald Klop wrote:
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 09:29:08 -0600, Thomas T. Veldhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I just read in the release notes that 5.3-RELEASE has the new ULE
scheduler available, but that 4BSD is the default scheduler. I thought
I read
30 matches
Mail list logo
