From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Dec 13 23:42:15 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 F12F81065703;
	Tue, 13 Dec 2011 23:42:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fidaj@ukr.net)
Received: from fsm1.ukr.net (fsm1.ukr.net [195.214.192.120])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A00CD8FC1A;
	Tue, 13 Dec 2011 23:42:14 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ukr.net;
	s=fsm; 
	h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Mime-Version:References:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date;
	bh=sw3zgxPAR3QAfGKCe6TuQNxbPW4sLLWcsOBc2vusc8o=; 
	b=M+tGRDGYgsoljjuix/VjsnDBpi6i74Dlzd8dfI6e/B9ADT1z/g07FroZ3i3PrwHMZSKrk5ZMvuPz+hGrXrKXdv4F48onYzXCsj6A6osK4DwY+C1igtpK4mUPbE5VlNiD4pun5cGDHng615clnM6+XbGUMwaZdZXCz/o0vpbLGzo=;
Received: from [178.137.138.140] (helo=nonamehost.)
	by fsm1.ukr.net with esmtpsa ID 1RabzA-000Ofi-Px
	; Wed, 14 Dec 2011 01:42:12 +0200
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 01:42:11 +0200
From: Ivan Klymenko <fidaj@ukr.net>
To: Marcus Reid <marcus@blazingdot.com>
Message-ID: <20111214014211.3e108b53@nonamehost.>
In-Reply-To: <20111213230215.GA83159@blazingdot.com>
References: <4EE1EAFE.3070408@m5p.com> <4EE22421.9060707@gmail.com>
	<4EE6060D.5060201@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de>
	<4EE69C5A.3090005@FreeBSD.org>
	<20111213230215.GA83159@blazingdot.com>
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.10 (GTK+ 2.24.6; amd64-portbld-freebsd10.0)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "O. Hartmann" <ohartman@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de>,
	Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org,
	freebsd-performance@freebsd.org,
	Current FreeBSD <freebsd-current@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 23:42:15 -0000

=D0=92 Tue, 13 Dec 2011 23:02:15 +0000
Marcus Reid <marcus@blazingdot.com> =D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=88=D0=B5=D1=82:

> 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?
> >=20
> > 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.
>=20
> 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.

Why, then X is not a bottleneck when using 4BSD?

> Marcus