From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <6fab54d97a1b61a333f755f0595b6968@hamnavoe.com>
To: 9fans@9fans.net
From: Richard Miller <9fans@hamnavoe.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2010 08:44:08 +0100
In-Reply-To: <339274c87be111df807b4bde17033814@kw.quanstro.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] interesting timing tests
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 35affe92-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> in any event, i was suspecting that ilock
> would be a big loser as nproc goes up, and it does appear to
> be.

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

> 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();
}