Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 15:25:42 -0500 (EST) From: Garrett Wollman <wollman@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> To: bruce@cran.org.uk Cc: stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SCHED_ULE should not be the default Message-ID: <201112122025.pBCKPgtB044579@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> In-Reply-To: <4EE6595C.3080608@cran.org.uk> References: <4EE1EAFE.3070408@m5p.com> <4EE22421.9060707@gmail.com> <4EE6060D.5060201@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de> <20111212155159.GB73597@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <20198.21654.915449.536365@hergotha.csail.mit.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In article <4EE6595C.3080608@cran.org.uk>, bruce@cran.org.uk writes: >On 12/12/2011 19:23, Garrett Wollman wrote: >> Where do you get that idea? I've never seen any evidence for this >> proposition (although the claim is repeated often enough). What are >> the specific circumstances that make this useful? Where did the >> number come from? > >It's just something I've heard repeated, and people claiming that >setting it improves performance. > >This explains how the value 224 was obtained: >http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/2010-September/058686.html Not so far as I can see. The message does suggest that it helps if you are running a CPU-hog GUI, which seems plausible to me, but doesn't justify making it the default -- particularly when the setting is undocumented. (It appears to control how CPU-bound a process can be and still preempt another even more CPU-bound process, so using this as a "desktop performance" "fix" looks doubly wrong.) -GAWollman
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201112122025.pBCKPgtB044579>