Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 12:17:46 -0500 From: "Brian F. Feldman" <green@freebsd.org> To: Peter Schultz <pmes@bis.midco.net> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] for SCHED_ULE & libpthread issue (was Re: I like SCHED_4BSD) Message-ID: <200403151717.i2FHHk8R009316@green.homeunix.org> In-Reply-To: Message from Peter Schultz <pmes@bis.midco.net> of "Fri, 12 Mar 2004 13:12:41 CST." <40520BA9.4080502@bis.midco.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Peter Schultz <pmes@bis.midco.net> wrote: > Taku YAMAMOTO wrote: > > Unfortunately, due to over-optimization in sched_switch(), SCHED_ULE doesn't > > give reasonable CPU time to the threads which are using scheduler activation. > > > > Detailed analisis is described in my previous message posted to current@: > > "SCHED_ULE sometimes puts P_SA processes into ksq_next unnecessarily" > > <20040213063139.71298ea9.taku@cent.saitama-u.ac.jp> > > or > > http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040213063139.71298ea9.taku > > , which didn't get broader audience :( > > > > Until the problem is fully addressed, I will propose following patch > > to be applied. (the least intrusive one attached in the former message) > > > > This patch improves interactivity under heavy load very much. My system is VERY well-behaved using this change. (It's 2xSMP). -- Brian Fundakowski Feldman \'[ FreeBSD ]''''''''''\ <> green@FreeBSD.org \ The Power to Serve! \ Opinions expressed are my own. \,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,\
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200403151717.i2FHHk8R009316>