From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jan 31 13:24:23 2004 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 4C04916A4CE for ; Sat, 31 Jan 2004 13:24:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from troutmask.apl.washington.edu (troutmask.apl.washington.edu [128.208.78.105]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF4F143D4C for ; Sat, 31 Jan 2004 13:24:19 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu) Received: from troutmask.apl.washington.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) i0VLOJTA076652; Sat, 31 Jan 2004 13:24:19 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu) Received: (from sgk@localhost)i0VLOJ65076651; Sat, 31 Jan 2004 13:24:19 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from sgk) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 13:24:19 -0800 From: Steve Kargl To: Harald Schmalzbauer Message-ID: <20040131212419.GA76513@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> References: <200401312146.32847@harrymail> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200401312146.32847@harrymail> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SCHED_ULE and nice still ignored 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: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 21:24:23 -0000 On Sat, Jan 31, 2004 at 09:46:29PM +0100, Harald Schmalzbauer wrote: Content-Description: signed data > > like I reported some weeks ago, SCHED_ULE seems to ignore nice. > Since it's now the default I gave it another try and did the following simple > test: > > SCHED_ULE: > seti in background (doesn't matter if nice=20 or 15) > /usr/ports/sysutils/cpdup > make install takes Minutes > > Without seti it takes some seconds > > SCHED_4BSD: > seti in background (doesn't matter if nice=20 or 15) > /usr/ports/sysutils/cpdup > make install finishes in seconds. No difference with or without seti > > > Please let us know when nice gets respected by SCHED_ULE so I can really use > it as default scheduler. > Seems to work for me. You need to describe your problem better. last pid: 70890; load averages: 2.49, 1.86, 1.54 up 1+17:55:17 13:23:16 64 processes: 5 running, 59 sleeping CPU states: 16.8% user, 4.6% nice, 77.7% system, 1.0% interrupt, 0.0% idle Mem: 120M Active, 176M Inact, 58M Wired, 18M Cache, 48M Buf, 1072K Free Swap: 356M Total, 356M Free PID USERNAME PRI NICE SIZE RES STATE TIME WCPU CPU COMMAND 592 kargl 76 0 35248K 34284K RUN 600:36 1.56% 1.56% XFree86 70093 kargl 8 20 1708K 1000K wait 0:00 1.56% 1.56% sh 70889 kargl 139 20 4152K 3148K RUN 0:00 1.56% 1.56% cc1 70887 kargl 8 20 328K 220K wait 0:00 1.56% 1.56% gcc 70886 kargl 8 20 1708K 1000K wait 0:00 1.56% 1.56% sh 822 kargl 76 0 5000K 3276K select 2:02 0.78% 0.78% xterm 70792 root 8 0 1336K 1216K wait 0:00 0.78% 0.78% make 70888 root 8 0 1660K 944K wait 0:00 0.78% 0.78% sh 70890 root 139 0 1568K 632K RUN 0:00 0.78% 0.78% gzip 606 kargl 76 0 5068K 3340K RUN 0:01 0.00% 0.00% xterm 70765 kargl 76 0 2312K 1364K RUN 0:00 0.00% 0.00% top -- Steve