From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Oct 15 12:09:36 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 9E6BF16A4B3; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 12:09:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.chesapeake.net (chesapeake.net [208.142.252.6])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 7A91143F3F; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 12:09:35 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from jroberson@chesapeake.net)
Received: from localhost (jroberson@localhost)
	by mail.chesapeake.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h9FJ9Zn88575;
	Wed, 15 Oct 2003 15:09:35 -0400 (EDT)
	(envelope-from jroberson@chesapeake.net)
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 15:09:35 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jeff Roberson <jroberson@chesapeake.net>
To: deischen@freebsd.org
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10310150846080.7317-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com>
Message-ID: <20031015150836.T30029-100000@mail.chesapeake.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
cc: current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: More ULE bugs 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: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 19:09:36 -0000

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003, Daniel Eischen wrote:

> On Wed, 15 Oct 2003, Jeff Roberson wrote:
>
> > I fixed two bugs that were exposed due to more of the kernel running
> > outside of Giant.  ULE had some issues with priority propagation that
> > stopped it from working very well.
> >
> > Things should be much improved.  Feedback, as always, is welcome.  I'd
> > like to look into making this the default scheduler for 5.2 if things
> > start looking up.  I hope that scares you all into using it more. :-)
>
> Before you do that, can you look into changing the scheduler
> interfaces to address David Xu's concern with it being
> suboptimal for KSE processes?

Certainly, it may not happen if I can't find out what's making things so
jerky for gnome/kde users.  If it looks like it will, I'll investigate the
kse issues.

>
> --
> Dan Eischen
>