Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 13:12:41 -0600 From: Peter Schultz <pmes@bis.midco.net> To: Taku YAMAMOTO <taku@cent.saitama-u.ac.jp> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] for SCHED_ULE & libpthread issue (was Re: I like SCHED_4BSD) Message-ID: <40520BA9.4080502@bis.midco.net> In-Reply-To: <20040312092348.18be60e0.taku@cent.saitama-u.ac.jp> References: <XFMail.20040310213645.conrads@cox.net> <4050BBCB.50302@cinci.rr.com> <20040312092348.18be60e0.taku@cent.saitama-u.ac.jp>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Taku YAMAMOTO wrote: > Unfortunately, due to over-optimization in sched_switch(), SCHED_ULE doesn't > give reasonable CPU time to the threads which are using scheduler activation. > > Detailed analisis is described in my previous message posted to current@: > "SCHED_ULE sometimes puts P_SA processes into ksq_next unnecessarily" > <20040213063139.71298ea9.taku@cent.saitama-u.ac.jp> > or > http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040213063139.71298ea9.taku > , which didn't get broader audience :( > > Until the problem is fully addressed, I will propose following patch > to be applied. (the least intrusive one attached in the former message) > This patch improves interactivity under heavy load very much. Thanks, Pete...
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?40520BA9.4080502>