Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2018 16:16:25 +0200 From: Peter <pmc@citylink.dinoex.sub.org> To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: kern.sched.quantum: Creepy, sadistic scheduler Message-ID: <pa2mnq$6kj$1@oper.dinoex.de> In-Reply-To: <8cfdb8a3-86a0-17ba-1e41-ff1912a30ee9@m5p.com> References: <pa17m7$82t$1@oper.dinoex.de> <9FDC510B-49D0-4722-B695-6CD38CA20D4A@gmail.com> <8cfdb8a3-86a0-17ba-1e41-ff1912a30ee9@m5p.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
George Mitchell wrote: > On 04/04/18 06:39, Alban Hertroys wrote: >> [...] >> That said, SCHED_ULE (the default scheduler for quite a while now) was designed with multi-CPU configurations in mind and there are claims that SCHED_4BSD works better for single-CPU configurations. You may give that a try, if you're not already on SCHED_4BSD. >> [...] > > A small, disgruntled community of FreeBSD users who have never seen > proof that SCHED_ULE is better than SCHED_4BSD in any environment > continue to regularly recompile with SCHED_4BSD. I dread the day when > that becomes impossible, but at least it isn't here yet. -- George > Yes *laugh*, I found a very lengthy and mind-boggling discussion from back in 2011. And I found that You made this statement somewhere there: // With nCPU compute-bound processes running, with SCHED_ULE, any other // process that is interactive (which to me means frequently waiting for // I/O) gets ABYSMAL performance -- over an order of magnitude worse // than it gets with SCHED_4BSD under the same conditions. -- https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/2011-December/064984.html And this describes quite exactly what I perceive. Now, I would like to ask: what has been done about this issue? P.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?pa2mnq$6kj$1>