Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 19:31:06 -0500 (EST) From: Jeff Roberson <jroberson@chesapeake.net> To: "Daniel O'Connor" <doconnor@gsoft.com.au> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ULE nice behavior fixed. Message-ID: <20030402193018.H64602-100000@mail.chesapeake.net> In-Reply-To: <200304030931.06619.doconnor@gsoft.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 3 Apr 2003, Daniel O'Connor wrote: > On Wed, 2 Apr 2003 16:24, Jeff Roberson wrote: > > It probably still needs some tweaking but it seems to be MUCH better now. > > New algorithm entirely. > > > > nice +20 processes will not run if anything else wants to. > > > > idleprio is still not working correctly. bde reports that this causes a > > 3% perf degradation for buildworld. > > Isn't nice +20 == idle prio then? > > My understanding was that idle prio didn't run unless nothing else wanted the > CPU which is what you describe nice +20 as doing :) > It's actually a seperate priority class. It doesn't have anything to do with nice. This is now fixed in ULE. We treat the classes specially now where before everything went onto the same run queue. Cheers, Jeff
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030402193018.H64602-100000>