Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 13:41:59 +0900 From: Taku YAMAMOTO <taku@tackymt.homeip.net> To: "Larry Rosenman" <ler@lerctr.org> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Scheduler weirdness Message-ID: <20091012134159.8f6e4d66.taku@tackymt.homeip.net> In-Reply-To: <6729ad0409e449f8dbda69ecd8feb618.squirrel@webmail.lerctr.org> References: <6729ad0409e449f8dbda69ecd8feb618.squirrel@webmail.lerctr.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 17:59:52 -0500
"Larry Rosenman" <ler@lerctr.org> wrote:
>
> Ok, running RELENG_8 from Friday (10/9/2009).
>
> If I have 4 Folding-at-home processes running (they nice themselves) the
> system is slow as a dog.
Ah, I reminded a local patch regarding SCHED_ULE against niced threads.
Something like this:
--- sys/kern/sched_ule.c.orig 2009-04-29 12:26:30.000000000 +0900
+++ sys/kern/sched_ule.c 2009-04-30 08:13:30.951440396 +0900
@@ -1406,7 +1406,7 @@ sched_priority(struct thread *td)
* score. Negative nice values make it easier for a thread to be
* considered interactive.
*/
- score = imax(0, sched_interact_score(td) - td->td_proc->p_nice);
+ score = imax(0, sched_interact_score(td) + td->td_proc->p_nice);
if (score < sched_interact) {
pri = PRI_MIN_REALTIME;
pri += ((PRI_MAX_REALTIME - PRI_MIN_REALTIME) / sched_interact)
>
> If I stop them, it's speedy.
>
> This is running SCHED_ULE
>
> is this expected?
>
> What can I do to help?
>
> These are Linux binaries.
--
-|-__ YAMAMOTO, Taku
| __ < <taku@tackymt.homeip.net>
- A chicken is an egg's way of producing more eggs. -
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20091012134159.8f6e4d66.taku>