From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Dec 13 23:19:40 2011
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34672106567A;
	Tue, 13 Dec 2011 23:19:40 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from marcus@odin.blazingdot.com)
Received: from odin.blazingdot.com (odin.blazingdot.com [199.48.133.254])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1347F8FC16;
	Tue, 13 Dec 2011 23:19:39 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by odin.blazingdot.com (Postfix, from userid 1001)
	id 01B5D114241; Tue, 13 Dec 2011 23:02:15 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 23:02:15 +0000
From: Marcus Reid <marcus@blazingdot.com>
To: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org>
Message-ID: <20111213230215.GA83159@blazingdot.com>
References: <4EE1EAFE.3070408@m5p.com> <4EE22421.9060707@gmail.com>
	<4EE6060D.5060201@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de>
	<4EE69C5A.3090005@FreeBSD.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4EE69C5A.3090005@FreeBSD.org>
X-Coffee-Level: nearly-fatal
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Cc: "O. Hartmann" <ohartman@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de>,
	Current FreeBSD <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>,
	freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, freebsd-performance@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: SCHED_ULE should not be the default
X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code <freebsd-stable.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>,
	<mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 23:19:40 -0000

On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 04:29:14PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 12/12/2011 05:47, O. Hartmann wrote:
> > Do we have any proof at hand for such cases where SCHED_ULE performs
> > much better than SCHED_4BSD?
> 
> I complained about poor interactive performance of ULE in a desktop
> environment for years. I had numerous people try to help, including
> Jeff, with various tunables, dtrace'ing, etc. The cause of the problem
> was never found.

The issues that I've seen with ULE on the desktop seem to be caused by X
taking up a steady amount of CPU, and being demoted from being an
"interactive" process.  X then becomes the bottleneck for other
processes that would otherwise be "interactive".  Try 'renice -20
<pid_of_X>' and see if that makes your problems go away.

Marcus