> What is the bad thing about the process being scheduled on different CPUs?
I still don't know if it can cause delay that might affect performance
in processing applications being scheduled on different CPUs.
> The LWKT scheduler has nothing to do with processes or threads. It is
> exclusively
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 20:15:09 +0200 (CEST)
"Simon 'corecode' Schubert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, August 20, 2008 19:37, Robert Luciani wrote:
> >> Here, I'm only showing one running application but the same thing
> >> happen when 2 or 3 another applications are running, it still be
> >>
On Wed, August 20, 2008 19:37, Robert Luciani wrote:
>> Here, I'm only showing one running application but the same thing
>> happen when 2 or 3 another applications are running, it still be randomly
>> processed by CPUs. Suppose to be I want to test DragonFly on this
>> machine but unfortunately AM
> Here, I'm only showing one running application but the same thing
> happen when 2 or 3 another applications are running, it still be
> randomly processed by CPUs. Suppose to be I want to test DragonFly on
> this machine but unfortunately AMD-64 is still an ongoing development
> as of this time. I
:On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 07:00:23PM -0700, Matthew Dillon wrote:
:> * Unix in general does not guarantee atomicy between mmap-read or
:> mmap-written blocks and read() or write() ops. This is because
:> it has no way to know what the user program actualy wants when,
:> since
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 07:00:23PM -0700, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> * Unix in general does not guarantee atomicy between mmap-read or
> mmap-written blocks and read() or write() ops. This is because
> it has no way to know what the user program actualy wants when,
> since all m
On Wed, August 20, 2008 13:35, Archimedes Gaviola wrote:
> Here, I'm only showing one running application but the same thing
> happen when 2 or 3 another applications are running, it still be randomly
> processed by CPUs.
This is actually expected. For more fine-grained control, you would have
to
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 12:28 PM, Dylan Reinhold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is the top output from a MP Box
>
> load averages: 2.29, 1.02, 0.41 up 0+00:05:03
> 21:33:47
> 39 processes: 39 running
> CPU0 states: 16.2% user, 0.0% nice, 53.0% system, 21.1% interrupt,
