Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2018 02:47:56 +0200 From: Peter <pmc@citylink.dinoex.sub.org> To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: kern.sched.quantum: Creepy, sadistic scheduler Message-ID: <pa94ga$12li$1@oper.dinoex.de> In-Reply-To: <5AC5BA42.1010006@grosbein.net> References: <pa17m7$82t$1@oper.dinoex.de> <9FDC510B-49D0-4722-B695-6CD38CA20D4A@gmail.com> <8cfdb8a3-86a0-17ba-1e41-ff1912a30ee9@m5p.com> <pa2mnq$6kj$1@oper.dinoex.de> <5AC5BA42.1010006@grosbein.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Eugene Grosbein wrote: > I see no reasons to use SHED_ULE for such single core systems and use SCHED_BSD. Nitpicking: it is not a single core system, it's a dual that for now is equipped with only one chip, the other is in the shelf. But seriously, I am currently working myself through the design papers for the SCHED_ULE and the SMP stuff, and I tend to be with You and George, in that I do not really need these features. Nevertheless, I think the system should have proper behaviour *as default*, or otherwise there should be a hint in the docs what to do about. Thats the reason why I raise this issue - if the matter can be fixed, thats great, but if we come to the conclusion that small/single-core/CPU-bound/whatever systems are better off with SCHED_4BSD, then thats perfectly fine as well. Or maybe, that those systems should disable preemption? I currently don't know, but i hope we can figure this out, as the problem is clearly visible. P.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?pa94ga$12li$1>