idle priority scheduling broken in 7.0-BETA4

Peter Jeremy peterjeremy at
Thu Jan 3 23:32:20 PST 2008

On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 01:37:06PM -1000, Jeff Roberson wrote:
>On Fri, 4 Jan 2008, Peter Jeremy wrote:
>> That seems to work and I don't see any problems with it.  There were
>> seven watchdog restarts over about 3/4 hr whilst the system was doing
>> a buildworld but this is probably not completely unreasonable.
>This is a boinc watchdog?  The client just didn't get to run for too long 
>during the buildworld?

Yes.  Sorry for leaving out the necessary context.  It looks like there
are a couple of cases where buildworld manages to get CPU bound for a
significant period.  I don't see this as a problem.

>If there are any further complaints I will.  Is there any chance you could 
>also try it with nice +20 or nice +10 and report how the system behaves?

I tried 'nice +20' before I tried idprio and it also behaved correctly.
I haven't tried any other values.  The real idle kthread has managed to
clock up another minute of CPU time in the past 10 or so hours.  Again,
this seems reasonable.

Thanks for the patch.

Peter Jeremy
Please excuse any delays as the result of my ISP's inability to implement
an MTA that is either RFC2821-compliant or matches their claimed behaviour.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :

More information about the freebsd-current mailing list