From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Apr  2 16:31:14 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D556837B401
	for <current@freebsd.org>; Wed,  2 Apr 2003 16:31:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.chesapeake.net (chesapeake.net [205.130.220.14])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03FDE43FCB
	for <current@freebsd.org>; Wed,  2 Apr 2003 16:31:14 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from jroberson@chesapeake.net)
Received: from localhost (jroberson@localhost)
	by mail.chesapeake.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h330V6x19198;
	Wed, 2 Apr 2003 19:31:06 -0500 (EST)
	(envelope-from jroberson@chesapeake.net)
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 19:31:06 -0500 (EST)
From: Jeff Roberson <jroberson@chesapeake.net>
To: "Daniel O'Connor" <doconnor@gsoft.com.au>
In-Reply-To: <200304030931.06619.doconnor@gsoft.com.au>
Message-ID: <20030402193018.H64602-100000@mail.chesapeake.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
cc: current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: ULE nice behavior fixed.
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2003 00:31:15 -0000


On Thu, 3 Apr 2003, Daniel O'Connor wrote:

> On Wed, 2 Apr 2003 16:24, Jeff Roberson wrote:
> > It probably still needs some tweaking but it seems to be MUCH better now.
> > New algorithm entirely.
> >
> > nice +20 processes will not run if anything else wants to.
> >
> > idleprio is still not working correctly.  bde reports that this causes a
> > 3% perf degradation for buildworld.
>
> Isn't nice +20 == idle prio then?
>
> My understanding was that idle prio didn't run unless nothing else wanted the
> CPU which is what you describe nice +20 as doing :)
>

It's actually a seperate priority class.  It doesn't have anything to do
with nice.  This is now fixed in ULE.  We treat the classes specially now
where before everything went onto the same run queue.

Cheers,
Jeff