Scott Cheloha wrote:
> I might have a winner already, though.  Earlier today I saw iridium busy
> sleeping: repeat nanosleeps with zero'd timespec structs.  I have a ktrace
> here, but I have yet to reproduce.  Need to fuss with it a bit more.
> 
> fwiw, here's an exerpt:
> 
>  90240/241378  iridium  1545768212.972668 CALL  nanosleep(0x84928d42a78,0)
>  90240/123819  iridium  1545768212.972670 CALL  nanosleep(0x84928d42a78,0)
>  90240/241378  iridium  1545768212.972703 STRU  struct timespec { 0 }
>  90240/123819  iridium  1545768212.972706 STRU  struct timespec { 0 }
>  90240/169304  iridium  1545768212.983015 CALL  nanosleep(0x84928d42a78,0)
>  90240/169304  iridium  1545768212.983095 STRU  struct timespec { 0 }
>  90240/525129  iridium  1545768212.983100 CALL  nanosleep(0x84928d42a78,0)
>  90240/525129  iridium  1545768212.984049 STRU  struct timespec { 0 }
>  90240/241378  iridium  1545768212.993270 CALL  nanosleep(0x84928d42a78,0)
>  90240/241378  iridium  1545768212.993351 STRU  struct timespec { 0 }
>  90240/123819  iridium  1545768212.997352 CALL  nanosleep(0x84928d42a78,0)
>  90240/123819  iridium  1545768212.997431 STRU  struct timespec { 0 }
>  90240/558012  iridium  1545768212.998511 CALL  nanosleep(0x84928d42a78,0)
>  90240/558012  iridium  1545768212.998516 STRU  struct timespec { 0 }
> 
> ... in my 13 second trace there are ~3000 zero'd nanosleep calls across
> several threads.  It went like that, eating up 1.5 CPUs worth of time until
> I killed it... ugh, chrome...

and you want to change things to use *more* CPU??? :)

Reply via email to