--B0nZA57HJSoPbsHY
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sun, Oct 14, 2007 at 06:39:35PM -0500, Johan A. van Zanten wrote:
>=20
> Bill Stouder-Studenmund <wrstuden@netbsd.org> wrote:
> > Pay attention to the ones not in "vnlock". Processes in "vnlock" are=20
> > sleeping, waiting on a vnode lock. They thus aren't directly consuming=
=20
> > CPU. You really want to know what the vnode lock holder is doing while=
=20
> > this is happening.
>=20
> When i've noticed it in top, 3-4 of the total 4 nfsds were in vnlock.
>=20
> Would they appear to be using a lot of CPU if it's a spin lock?

No. "vnlock" means they're sleeping.

It could be that one of them is grabbing the lock & doing lots of work,=20
with the others piling up on the lock. And it just rotates which one is=20
doing all the work.

> > I'm going to blame softdeps. Can you try things w/o them?
>=20
> Will do, as time permits.
>=20
> > >  The system seems to recover, but i have noticed some of the recorded
> > > programs  have lost substantial chunks of data, though that could
> > > also be due to many other factors, such as antenna reception.
> >=20
> > Some sort of cleanup is happening and gobbling lots of CPU.
>=20
>  Yeah, the notion i had is that the recording software buffers some, but
> then just starts dropping data as the writes queue.

It could be that we're not doing a good job of pushing data out.

Take care,

Bill

--B0nZA57HJSoPbsHY
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (NetBSD)

iD8DBQFHEsHCWz+3JHUci9cRApiYAKCKHvCEDutJ8KF701Mk+AgDTz9uzACghsJ+
lMmZhDB6Q1e2R+ftgBGM7S0=
=KXPj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--B0nZA57HJSoPbsHY--