From owner-freebsd-bugs Fri Jun 25 6:40: 5 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.FreeBSD.ORG [204.216.27.21]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32A8014F4A for ; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 06:40:03 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.9.3/8.9.2) id GAA61879; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 06:40:04 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 06:40:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199906251340.GAA61879@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Cc: From: Sheldon Hearn Subject: Re: kern/12381: Bad scheduling in FreeBSD Reply-To: Sheldon Hearn Sender: owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org The following reply was made to PR kern/12381; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Sheldon Hearn To: Thomas Schuerger Cc: freebsd-gnats-submit@freebsd.org Subject: Re: kern/12381: Bad scheduling in FreeBSD Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 15:31:25 +0200 On Fri, 25 Jun 1999 14:47:54 +0200, Thomas Schuerger wrote: > Not quite. The second PR states that FreeBSD uses a strange 2:1 > time-slicing when having two CPU-intensive processes, one in the > foreground and one in the background. In the first PR, I stated that > also any I/O is very much affected by long-runners in the background, > so that even processes not requiring much CPU-time but depending on > I/O (network, disks) are affected. So surely the "problem" in the first PR would "go away" if the "problem" in the second were resolved? By the way, when you did your comparison with Solaris, were you watching CPU time spent in system? Ciao, Sheldon. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-bugs" in the body of the message