Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 10:59:33 -1000 (HST) From: Jeff Roberson <jroberson@jroberson.net> To: Eitan Adler <lists@eitanadler.com> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ULE patch, call for testers Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1211021058480.1947@desktop> In-Reply-To: <CAF6rxgmgbtx1gvcAZJtDFVj_QexevV4gpuFe9YLbJ_G-JKfeDw@mail.gmail.com> References: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1211020822260.1947@desktop> <CAF6rxgmgbtx1gvcAZJtDFVj_QexevV4gpuFe9YLbJ_G-JKfeDw@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 2 Nov 2012, Eitan Adler wrote: > On 2 November 2012 14:26, Jeff Roberson <jroberson@jroberson.net> wrote: >> I have a small patch to the ULE scheduler that makes a fairly large change >> to the way timeshare threads are handled. >> >> http://people.freebsd.org/~jeff/schedslice.diff >> >> Previously ULE used a fixed slice size for all timeshare threads. Now it >> scales the slice size down based on load. This should reduce latency for >> timeshare threads as load increases. It is important to note that this does >> not impact interactive threads. But when a thread transitions to >> interactive from timeshare it should see some improvement. This happens >> when something like Xorg chews up a lot of CPU. >> >> If anyone has perf tests they'd like to run please report back. I have done >> a handful of validation. > > does it make sense to make these sysctls? > > +#define SCHED_SLICE_DEFAULT_DIVISOR 10 /* 100 ms. */ > +#define SCHED_SLICE_MIN_DIVISOR 4 /* DEFAULT/MIN = 25 ms. */ > DEFAULT_DIVISOR is indirectly through the sysctls that modify the slice. The min divisor could be. I will consider adding that. Thanks, Jeff > > -- > Eitan Adler >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.00.1211021058480.1947>