From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 7 07:34:20 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6299B10656D1; Tue, 7 Sep 2010 07:34:20 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from avg@icyb.net.ua) Received: from citadel.icyb.net.ua (citadel.icyb.net.ua [212.40.38.140]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E8E08FC17; Tue, 7 Sep 2010 07:34:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from porto.topspin.kiev.ua (porto-e.starpoint.kiev.ua [212.40.38.100]) by citadel.icyb.net.ua (8.8.8p3/ICyb-2.3exp) with ESMTP id KAA16472; Tue, 07 Sep 2010 10:34:15 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from avg@icyb.net.ua) Received: from localhost.topspin.kiev.ua ([127.0.0.1]) by porto.topspin.kiev.ua with esmtp (Exim 4.34 (FreeBSD)) id 1Ossh5-000Mj2-HH; Tue, 07 Sep 2010 10:34:15 +0300 Message-ID: <4C85EAF7.3040803@icyb.net.ua> Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2010 10:34:15 +0300 From: Andriy Gapon User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD amd64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.8) Gecko/20100822 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: jhell References: <4C7F7C0F.8080004@icyb.net.ua> <4C818F65.3000603@freebsd.org> <4C853B91.4090601@DataIX.net> In-Reply-To: <4C853B91.4090601@DataIX.net> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, David Xu Subject: Re: Tuning the scheduler? Desktop with a CPU-intensive task becomes rapidly unusable. X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2010 07:34:20 -0000 on 06/09/2010 22:05 jhell said the following: > On 09/03/2010 20:14, David Xu wrote: >> I think sysctl kern.sched.preempt_thresh is too low, default is only >> 64. I always tune it up to 200 on my desktop machine which is >> running gnome and other GUI applications, for a heavy GUI deskkop, I >> would tune it up to 224 to get better result. >> > > For reference how did you arrive at 224 for a result ? As Jeremy has already discovered, take a look at sys/sys/priority.h, especially PRI_MIN_IDLE. -- Andriy Gapon