Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 01:42:11 +0200 From: Ivan Klymenko <fidaj@ukr.net> To: Marcus Reid <marcus@blazingdot.com> Cc: "O. Hartmann" <ohartman@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de>, Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, Current FreeBSD <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: SCHED_ULE should not be the default Message-ID: <20111214014211.3e108b53@nonamehost.> In-Reply-To: <20111213230215.GA83159@blazingdot.com> References: <4EE1EAFE.3070408@m5p.com> <4EE22421.9060707@gmail.com> <4EE6060D.5060201@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de> <4EE69C5A.3090005@FreeBSD.org> <20111213230215.GA83159@blazingdot.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
=D0=92 Tue, 13 Dec 2011 23:02:15 +0000 Marcus Reid <marcus@blazingdot.com> =D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=88=D0=B5=D1=82: > On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 04:29:14PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote: > > On 12/12/2011 05:47, O. Hartmann wrote: > > > Do we have any proof at hand for such cases where SCHED_ULE > > > performs much better than SCHED_4BSD? > >=20 > > I complained about poor interactive performance of ULE in a desktop > > environment for years. I had numerous people try to help, including > > Jeff, with various tunables, dtrace'ing, etc. The cause of the > > problem was never found. >=20 > The issues that I've seen with ULE on the desktop seem to be caused > by X taking up a steady amount of CPU, and being demoted from being an > "interactive" process. X then becomes the bottleneck for other > processes that would otherwise be "interactive". Try 'renice -20 > <pid_of_X>' and see if that makes your problems go away. Why, then X is not a bottleneck when using 4BSD? > Marcus
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20111214014211.3e108b53>