Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 19:35:59 -0500 (EST) From: Jeff Roberson <jroberson@chesapeake.net> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ULE nice behavior fixed. Message-ID: <20030402193352.T64602-100000@mail.chesapeake.net> In-Reply-To: <20030402212503.N26453@gamplex.bde.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Bruce Evans wrote: > On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Sheldon Hearn wrote: > > > On (2003/04/02 01:54), 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. > > > > Some of us have been waiting for that behaviour for a long time (long > > before you started working on ULE). > > Er, this is the normal behaviour in FreeBSD-3.0 through FreeBSD-4.8, > so you shouldn't have waited more than negative 4 years for it :-). > The strict implementation of this behaviour in these releases causes > priority inversion problems, but the problems apparently aren't very > important. The scaling of niceness was re-broken in -current about 3 > years ago to "fix" the priority inversion problems. This is with > SCHED_4BSD. SCHED_ULE has larger problems. > Do you know of any problem other than idlepri breakage? I just fixed that. I'm about to get on a plane so I don't have time to benchmark it. If you have a chance I'd love to see how the most recent fixes effect your buildworld time. I still have to microoptimize the code a bit to get rid of switch statements etc, but it all works. Cheers, Jeff
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030402193352.T64602-100000>