From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Mar  7 16:13:12 2008
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: arch@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACEFE106568D;
	Fri,  7 Mar 2008 16:13:12 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from mckusick@mckusick.com)
Received: from chez.mckusick.com (chez.mckusick.com [64.81.247.49])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 896288FC1C;
	Fri,  7 Mar 2008 16:13:12 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from mckusick@mckusick.com)
Received: from chez.mckusick.com (localhost.mckusick.com [127.0.0.1])
	by chez.mckusick.com (8.13.8/8.13.6) with ESMTP id m27FeSU6096030;
	Fri, 7 Mar 2008 07:40:36 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from mckusick@chez.mckusick.com)
Message-Id: <200803071540.m27FeSU6096030@chez.mckusick.com>
To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org>
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2008 07:40:28 -0800
From: Kirk McKusick <mckusick@mckusick.com>
Cc: arch@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Getting rid of the static msleep priority boost 
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture <freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2008 16:13:12 -0000

> From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org>
> To: Jeff Roberson <jroberson@chesapeake.net>
> Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 08:42:37 -0500
> Cc: arch@freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: Getting rid of the static msleep priority boost
> 
> On Friday 07 March 2008 07:16:30 am Jeff Roberson wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I've been studying some problems with recent scheduler improvements that
> > help a lot on some workloads and hurt on others.  I've tracked the problem
> > down to static priority boosts handed out by msleep/cv_broadcastpri.
> > ...
> 
> ...
>
> This change allows the decision on priority boost to be a scheduler
> decision to ignore it (so 4BSD could continue to do what it does now,
> but ULE may ignore it, or ignore certain levels, etc.)
> 
> -- 
> John Baldwin

I strongly agree with John's suggestion. The 4BSD scheduler will continue
to have its historic behavior (which was `tuned' by careful selection of
priority boosts) while more sophisticated schedulers like ULE will be able
to use/ignore the priority boosts based on their better knowledge of system
behavior.

	Kirk McKusick