From owner-freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Wed Apr 4 14:35:04 2018 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95FA4F9360A for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2018 14:35:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from li-fbsd@citylink.dinoex.sub.org) Received: from uucp.dinoex.sub.de (uucp.dinoex.sub.de [IPv6:2001:1440:5001:1::2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "uucp.dinoex.sub.de", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EFC7B7EB9C for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2018 14:35:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from li-fbsd@citylink.dinoex.sub.org) Received: from uucp.dinoex.sub.de (uucp.dinoex.sub.de [194.45.71.2]) by uucp.dinoex.sub.de (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id w34EYxh6099976 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2018 16:35:00 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from li-fbsd@citylink.dinoex.sub.org) X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: Received: from citylink.dinoex.sub.org (uucp@localhost) by uucp.dinoex.sub.de (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) with UUCP id w34EYxYF099975 for freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG; Wed, 4 Apr 2018 16:34:59 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from li-fbsd@citylink.dinoex.sub.org) Received: from gate.oper.dinoex.org (gate-e [192.168.98.2]) by citylink.dinoex.sub.de (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id w34EOBbt007984 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2018 16:24:11 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from li-fbsd@citylink.dinoex.sub.org) Received: from gate.oper.dinoex.org (gate-e [192.168.98.2]) by gate.oper.dinoex.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id w34EO2VR007902 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2018 16:24:02 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from li-fbsd@citylink.dinoex.sub.org) Received: (from news@localhost) by gate.oper.dinoex.org (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id w34EO2LH007901 for freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG; Wed, 4 Apr 2018 16:24:02 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from li-fbsd@citylink.dinoex.sub.org) X-Authentication-Warning: gate.oper.dinoex.org: news set sender to li-fbsd@citylink.dinoex.sub.org using -f From: Peter Subject: Re: kern.sched.quantum: Creepy, sadistic scheduler Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2018 16:16:25 +0200 Organization: even some more stinky socks Message-ID: References: <9FDC510B-49D0-4722-B695-6CD38CA20D4A@gmail.com> <8cfdb8a3-86a0-17ba-1e41-ff1912a30ee9@m5p.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2018 14:16:26 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: oper.dinoex.de; logging-data="6803"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@citylink.dinoex.sub.org" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:51.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/51.0 SeaMonkey/2.48 In-Reply-To: <8cfdb8a3-86a0-17ba-1e41-ff1912a30ee9@m5p.com> Sender: li-fbsd@citylink.dinoex.sub.org To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG X-Milter: Spamilter (Reciever: uucp.dinoex.sub.de; Sender-ip: 194.45.71.2; Sender-helo: uucp.dinoex.sub.de; ) X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.6.2 (uucp.dinoex.sub.de [194.45.71.2]); Wed, 04 Apr 2018 16:35:01 +0200 (CEST) X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.25 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2018 14:35:04 -0000 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.