From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Oct 12 04:42:05 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 053F71065670 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 2009 04:42:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from taku@tackymt.homeip.net) Received: from basalt.tackymt.homeip.net (unknown [IPv6:2001:3e0:577:0:20d:61ff:fecc:2253]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A25F78FC13 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 2009 04:42:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by basalt.tackymt.homeip.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60C961074E; Mon, 12 Oct 2009 13:42:03 +0900 (JST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at tackymt.homeip.net Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (basalt.tackymt.homeip.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wtmVkiBfKecn; Mon, 12 Oct 2009 13:42:00 +0900 (JST) Received: from basalt.tackymt.homeip.net (basalt.tackymt.homeip.net [IPv6:2001:3e0:577:0:20d:61ff:fecc:2253]) by basalt.tackymt.homeip.net (Postfix) with ESMTP; Mon, 12 Oct 2009 13:42:00 +0900 (JST) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 13:41:59 +0900 From: Taku YAMAMOTO To: "Larry Rosenman" Message-Id: <20091012134159.8f6e4d66.taku@tackymt.homeip.net> In-Reply-To: <6729ad0409e449f8dbda69ecd8feb618.squirrel@webmail.lerctr.org> References: <6729ad0409e449f8dbda69ecd8feb618.squirrel@webmail.lerctr.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.4.8 (GTK+ 2.16.1; i386-portbld-freebsd8.0) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Scheduler weirdness X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 04:42:05 -0000 On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 17:59:52 -0500 "Larry Rosenman" 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 | __ < - A chicken is an egg's way of producing more eggs. -