In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Nate Williams writes: >> >> Can you try to MFC rev 1.111 and see if that changes anything ? >> > >> >That produced some interesting results. I am still testing under >> >very heavy network interrupt load. With the change from 1.111, I >> >still get the microuptime messages about as often. But look how >> >much larger the reported backwards jumps are: >> > >> > microuptime() went backwards (896.225603 -> 888.463636) >> > microuptime() went backwards (896.225603 -> 888.494440) >> > microuptime() went backwards (896.225603 -> 888.500875) >> > microuptime() went backwards (1184.392277 -> 1176.603001) >> > microuptime() went backwards (1184.392277 -> 1176.603749) >> >> (Ok, I'll MFC 1.111) > >Huh? It appears that 1.111 makes things worse, not better (larger >jumps).
No, 1.111 makes the jumps report more correctly I think. They will maybe save your meal in less bad cases than yours, but in yours they just make sure that we don't get invalid number of microseconds in a timeval, and consequently we get more honest output. >> We now have three options left: >> hardclock interrupt starvation > >This is Bruce's hypothesis, right? Also mine for that matter. >> scheduling related anomaly wrt to the use of microuptime(). >> arithmetic overflow because the call to microuptime() gets >> interrupted for too long. > >'Interrupted for too long'. Do you mean 'not interrupted enough', aka >a long interrupt blockage? (I'm trying to understand here.) See my previous email, I just explained it there. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message