Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 16:36:16 -0400 From: Eitan Adler <lists@eitanadler.com> To: Jeff Roberson <jroberson@jroberson.net> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ULE patch, call for testers Message-ID: <CAF6rxgmgbtx1gvcAZJtDFVj_QexevV4gpuFe9YLbJ_G-JKfeDw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1211020822260.1947@desktop> References: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1211020822260.1947@desktop>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2 November 2012 14:26, Jeff Roberson <jroberson@jroberson.net> wrote: > I have a small patch to the ULE scheduler that makes a fairly large change > to the way timeshare threads are handled. > > http://people.freebsd.org/~jeff/schedslice.diff > > Previously ULE used a fixed slice size for all timeshare threads. Now it > scales the slice size down based on load. This should reduce latency for > timeshare threads as load increases. It is important to note that this does > not impact interactive threads. But when a thread transitions to > interactive from timeshare it should see some improvement. This happens > when something like Xorg chews up a lot of CPU. > > If anyone has perf tests they'd like to run please report back. I have done > a handful of validation. does it make sense to make these sysctls? +#define SCHED_SLICE_DEFAULT_DIVISOR 10 /* 100 ms. */ +#define SCHED_SLICE_MIN_DIVISOR 4 /* DEFAULT/MIN = 25 ms. */ -- Eitan Adler
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAF6rxgmgbtx1gvcAZJtDFVj_QexevV4gpuFe9YLbJ_G-JKfeDw>