From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2010 08:45:35 -0400
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Message-ID: <1e3839eef0747b0e90b5ae21a71e41ce@kw.quanstro.net>
In-Reply-To: <6fab54d97a1b61a333f755f0595b6968@hamnavoe.com>
References: <6fab54d97a1b61a333f755f0595b6968@hamnavoe.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] interesting timing tests
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 35b55a40-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> Spin locks would have been high on my list of suspects.

mine, too.  the 64 bit question is, which spin locks.

>
> > i'm less sure that runproc is really using 62% of the cpu
>
> Not impossible, given this:
>
> Proc*
> runproc(void)
> {
> 		...
> 		/* waste time or halt the CPU */
> 		idlehands();
> 		...
>
> and this:
>
> void
> idlehands(void)
> {
> 	if(conf.nmach == 1)
> 		halt();
> }

yet for one machine conf.nmach == 4 and for the
other conf.nmach == 16; neither is calling halt.

- erik