Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 03:16:49 +0200 (CEST) From: "P.U.Kruppa" <ulrich@pukruppa.net> To: Kris Kennaway <kris@freebsd.org> Cc: "\[LoN\]Kamikaze" <LoN_Kamikaze@gmx.de>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SCHED_4BSD in RELENG_7 disturbs workflow Message-ID: <20071017030940.R1559@small> In-Reply-To: <47150F82.9060805@FreeBSD.org> References: <47150D87.3070804@gmx.de> <47150F82.9060805@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. --207141057-945791779-1192583809=:1559 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE On Tue, 16 Oct 2007, Kris Kennaway wrote: > [LoN]Kamikaze wrote: >> I know that RELENG_7 is not considered very near-release, but I thought = I'd >> give my 2=A2 in the hope that I might have a little influence on the=20 >> scheduler >> development to my benefit. >>=20 >> The switch from RELENG_6 to RELENG_7 went relatively smooth and apart fr= om=20 >> ipw >> causing panics. However there is one thing that's disturbing and this is= =20 >> the >> scheduler. I only have single core machines, so whatever I say only appl= ies=20 >> to >> those. If you think single-core machines are no longer important, feel f= ree=20 >> to >> ignore this. In deed, just ignore me however much you like. >>=20 >>> From my perspective scheduling on RELENG_6 was way better. Even on a fu= ll >> workload like a portupgrade the focused application (both in X and on th= e >> console) always received enough cycles to run smoothly and applications= =20 >> that >> ran in background like audio players also kept on running fine. >>=20 >> Quite the contrary on RELENG_7. During a portupgrade or even worse 'pkgd= b=20 >> -L' >> (recovering lost dependencies) audio players (both graphical and mplayer= ) >> scatter, either because they don't get the hard-disk or CPU-cycles (whic= h=20 >> one, >> I don't know) and the focused application also often hangs. It just look= s=20 >> like >> occasionally (under load) everything freezes for a second and then goes = on >> relatively normal. >>=20 >> I've got the impression that things compile a little faster (that might = be=20 >> my >> imagination, though), but I'd rather have a smooth working experience. >>=20 >> This is just my view of the situation and I suppose it is only one of ma= ny.=20 >> I >> bid you be merciful with us single-core people, who cannot afford a slic= k >> multi-core machine, because we worry how to pay for our food at the end = of=20 >> the >> month. > > Not to say that any problems that might have developed with SCHED_4BSD sh= ould=20 > not be fixed, but you should give SCHED_ULE a try since it brings benefit= s=20 > even for single CPU systems (e.g. better interactive response). I would like to second that. I have seen the same problems on my=20 single processor system and using SCHED_ULE instead of SCHED_4BSD=20 seems to improve the situation a lot. Uli. > > Kris > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org= " > Peter Ulrich Kruppa Wuppertal Germany --207141057-945791779-1192583809=:1559--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20071017030940.R1559>