I mean I added a usleep() before the poll in s_bsd.c for the undernet
2.10.10 code.
timeout = (IRCD_MIN(delay2, delay)) * 1000;
+ usleep(100000); <- New Line
nfds = poll(poll_fds, pfd_count, timeout);
And now we're using 1/8th the cpu! With no noticeable effects.
Regards
Darren.
-----Original Message-----
From: Aaron Sethman [mailto:androsyn@ratbox.org]
Sent: 04 February 2002 17:41
To: Darren Smith
Cc: 'Andrew Morton'; 'Dan Kegel'; 'Vincent Sweeney';
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; coder-com@undernet.org; 'Kevin L.
Mitchell'
Subject: RE: [Coder-Com] Re: PROBLEM: high system usage / poor SMP
network performance
On Mon, 4 Feb 2002, Darren Smith wrote:
> Hi
>
> I've been testing the modified Undernet (2.10.10) code with Vincent
> Sweeney based on the simple usleep(100000) addition to s_bsd.c
>
> PRI NICE SIZE RES STATE C TIME WCPU CPU | # USERS
> 2 0 96348K 96144K poll 0 29.0H 39.01% 39.01% | 1700 <- Without
> Patch
> 10 0 77584K 77336K nanslp 0 7:08 5.71% 5.71% | 1500 <- With
> Patch
Were you not putting a delay argument into poll(), or perhaps not
letting
it delay long enough? If you just do poll with a timeout of 0, its
going
to suck lots of cpu.
Regards,
Aaron
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 07 2002 - 21:00:36 EST