Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 14:45:17 +0200 (EET) From: "Viktor Ivanov" <v0rbiz@icon.bg> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ULE status Message-ID: <4253.213.222.48.10.1107866717.squirrel@mailgw.icon.bg> In-Reply-To: <200502081333.08964.michaelnottebrock@gmx.net> References: <Pine.BSO.4.56.0502081306440.28295@ux11.ltcm.net> <200502081333.08964.michaelnottebrock@gmx.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Февруари 8, 2005 14:33, Michael Nottebrock каза: > On Tuesday, 8. February 2005 13:07, Mipam wrote: >> I saw several changes to sched_ule.c in the 5 stable branch. >> Beneath is one of them: >> >> http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-src/2005-February/039863.html >> >> Is the ULE scheduler still far from stable in RELENG_5 or not? > > You can now compile a kernel with options SCHED_ULE again. How well it > works > is for yourself to determine :-) (I've been using it on my UP machine here > since yesterday only). Hi there I've been using only SCHED_ULE on my UP WS, even when there was #error def. It never broke, not even once :) Though I think there's trouble with SMP and/or HTT. I tried it once on a P4 and it paniced. On the other hand, using SCHED_ULE improves sound quality and general system 'response' concerning GUI... don't know 'bout performance. Regards
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4253.213.222.48.10.1107866717.squirrel>