From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Apr 2 16:36:10 2003 Return-Path: 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 0BCD137B401 for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 16:36:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.chesapeake.net (chesapeake.net [205.130.220.14]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4891843F93 for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 16:36:09 -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 h330Zxr22087; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 19:35:59 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from jroberson@chesapeake.net) Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 19:35:59 -0500 (EST) From: Jeff Roberson To: Bruce Evans In-Reply-To: <20030402212503.N26453@gamplex.bde.org> Message-ID: <20030402193352.T64602-100000@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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2003 00:36:10 -0000 On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Bruce Evans wrote: > On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Sheldon Hearn wrote: > > > On (2003/04/02 01:54), 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. > > > > Some of us have been waiting for that behaviour for a long time (long > > before you started working on ULE). > > Er, this is the normal behaviour in FreeBSD-3.0 through FreeBSD-4.8, > so you shouldn't have waited more than negative 4 years for it :-). > The strict implementation of this behaviour in these releases causes > priority inversion problems, but the problems apparently aren't very > important. The scaling of niceness was re-broken in -current about 3 > years ago to "fix" the priority inversion problems. This is with > SCHED_4BSD. SCHED_ULE has larger problems. > Do you know of any problem other than idlepri breakage? I just fixed that. I'm about to get on a plane so I don't have time to benchmark it. If you have a chance I'd love to see how the most recent fixes effect your buildworld time. I still have to microoptimize the code a bit to get rid of switch statements etc, but it all works. Cheers, Jeff