Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 22:31:55 +0100 From: Harald Schmalzbauer <h@schmalzbauer.de> To: Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SCHED_ULE and nice still ignored Message-ID: <200401312231.59784@harrymail> In-Reply-To: <20040131212419.GA76513@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> References: <200401312146.32847@harrymail> <20040131212419.GA76513@troutmask.apl.washington.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Saturday 31 January 2004 22:24, Steve Kargl wrote: > 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 Ok, perhaps nice is working in some way, but as I described earlier far away from what it should do. If I start a process with nice 15 (like seti) it shouldn't slow down my machine by exponetial factors. It should take cycles which are almost unused and not block regular processes (like make) If you want to know exact values, I can take a clock and measure the exact divverence, but I think this is not needed at all since the differenc isn't marignal, its minutes vs. seconds. -Harry > > 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 [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQBAHB7PBylq0S4AzzwRAoj4AJ9JZ649ZKzXsQTLk0z0pcp1Yuje4wCgkdsw UD3zSfYLJTC7nSVjcWfhFTc= =A7+5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200401312231.59784>