Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2010 02:27:59 +0100 From: Oliver Pinter <oliver.pntr@gmail.com> To: Garrett Cooper <gcooper@freebsd.org> Cc: FreeBSD Stable <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>, freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, FreeBSD Current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>, "O. Hartmann" <ohartman@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Subject: Re: TTY task group scheduling Message-ID: <AANLkTim5uCSapXVOybwZQuy5pHfkTcgWwCKftFFKbO8q@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikNBSxdYrNBzBsXUjvgLVKjtX9%2BcM-%2BzRE0v6Mk@mail.gmail.com> References: <AANLkTinHSX1%2Bs3hrHyDeU2Vfp6zekTe04XkHhTc2jtLv@mail.gmail.com> <4CE50849.106@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <AANLkTikW=86qe2RiqH6BnkHrFthVRQQGaOT68VBep6GD@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTikNBSxdYrNBzBsXUjvgLVKjtX9%2BcM-%2BzRE0v6Mk@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
My desktop running 7-STABLE with 100Hz and NOPREEMPT (it's a 4core SMP system), I tested 8-STABLE, but that is not too responsive, the solution is: 100Hz NOPREEMPT + kern.sched.preempt_thresh=224 After this setting, the system is likely responsive as 7-STABLE. On 11/19/10, Garrett Cooper <gcooper@freebsd.org> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 1:10 PM, Oliver Pinter <oliver.pntr@gmail.com> > wrote: >> http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/11/16/392 >> >> On 11/18/10, O. Hartmann <ohartman@zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote: >>> On 11/18/10 02:30, grarpamp wrote: >>>> Just documenting regarding interactive performance things. >>>> This one's from Linux. >>>> >>>> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=linux_2637_video&num=1 >>> >>> Well, >>> it would be nice to have those improvements in FreeBSD, but I doubt this >>> will make it in due time to FreeBSD's kernel. > > And my one line fix: > > renice 10 `pidof firefox-bin` > > Instantly my system is snappier (and in fact my system got really > laggy after applying the preempt sysctl that everyone recommended > before)... Performance issue with firefox maybe :P? I don't see the > point of adding an additional layer to complicate the system (and > essentially slow it down) if all you're trying to do is better > describe the nice'ing problem, unless this logic is what you want to > do strictly for desktop users in PCBSD, etc who may not have the > technical wherewithal to accomplish this task. > > Besides, the Linux kernel has different compile time profiles for > different workloads, so maybe it just works better for them because > they already have a means for describing that functionality, whereas > FreeBSD is more generic. > > It would be nice to describe this in a document though so people could > also decide how to tune the system for themselves and not deal with a > patch like what's noted above by the penguin crowd because it will > invariably fail under some workloads or conditions (I have yet to see > a one-size-fits-all solution in this area). > > <handwaving> > SCHED_ULE improvements though should be looked into if possible, > because there are some potential items that could be done to cluster > processes together better, maybe. > </handwaving> > > Thanks, > -Garrett >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AANLkTim5uCSapXVOybwZQuy5pHfkTcgWwCKftFFKbO8q>