From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Dec 19 09:22:12 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7C1A16A4CE for ; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 09:22:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.chesapeake.net (chesapeake.net [208.142.252.6]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E60A443D98 for ; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 09:22:04 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jroberson@chesapeake.net) Received: from localhost (jroberson@localhost) by mail.chesapeake.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBJHLrH88986; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 12:21:53 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from jroberson@chesapeake.net) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 12:21:53 -0500 (EST) From: Jeff Roberson To: Peter Schultz In-Reply-To: <3FE32D43.1060104@bis.midco.net> Message-ID: <20031219122000.K36463-100000@mail.chesapeake.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ULE Interactivity perf patch X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 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: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 17:22:12 -0000 On Fri, 19 Dec 2003, Peter Schultz wrote: > Jeff Roberson wrote: > > I realized a pitfal in the way that I'm doing slice assignment for > > interactive tasks. I'd like to have as many people test this as possible, > > in case there are unintended consequences. What this patch does is allow > > interactive tasks to have longer time-slices so that they may be more > > efficient. > > > > This patch is intended to fix the poor performance of some interactive > > processes while under high load, especially high load with other > > interactive tasks present. > > > > http://www.chesapeake.net/~jroberson/interact.diff > > > On this dual PII 350 box `make -j 11 buildworld', playing an mp3 with > xmms and unarchiving two separate mozilla distros can cause quite an > interactivity problem. At a more moderate system load things are quite > usable. It's still not BeOS, but BeOS never had the kind of i/o that > FreeBSD has, so I think things are going fairly well. Do these comments apply to ULE with and without the patch? Is there any difference? I suspect that your interactivity problems in this situation are more due to disk and memory pressure. If you were to fire up vi, or a shell, something that's totally memory resident, do they suffer any lag? Also, how well does 4BSD do in this same test? Thanks! Jeff > > Pete... >