From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Mar 16 13:54:02 2004
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 CE20416A4CE
	for <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>;
	Tue, 16 Mar 2004 13:54:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from winston.piwebs.com (217-19-20-186.dsl.cambrium.nl
	[217.19.20.186])	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0007243D41
	for <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>;
	Tue, 16 Mar 2004 13:54:01 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from avleeuwen@piwebs.com)
Received: (qmail 19497 invoked from network); 16 Mar 2004 21:54:00 -0000
Received: from vincent.piwebs.com (192.168.0.95)
  by winston.piwebs.com with SMTP; 16 Mar 2004 21:54:00 -0000
From: Arjan van Leeuwen <avleeuwen@piwebs.com>
To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 22:54:28 +0100
User-Agent: KMail/1.6.1
References: <200403151717.i2FHHk8R009316@green.homeunix.org>
In-Reply-To: <200403151717.i2FHHk8R009316@green.homeunix.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed;
  protocol="application/pgp-signature";
  micalg=pgp-sha1;
  boundary="Boundary-02=_Ye3VARzm7xzbiKc";
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <200403162254.32517.avleeuwen@piwebs.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] for SCHED_ULE & libpthread issue (was Re: I like
	SCHED_4BSD)
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
Reply-To: avleeuwen@piwebs.com
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: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 21:54:02 -0000


--Boundary-02=_Ye3VARzm7xzbiKc
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On Monday 15 March 2004 18:17, Brian F. Feldman wrote:
> Peter Schultz <pmes@bis.midco.net> wrote:
> > Taku YAMAMOTO wrote:
> > > Unfortunately, due to over-optimization in sched_switch(), SCHED_ULE
> > > doesn't give reasonable CPU time to the threads which are using
> > > scheduler activation.
> > >
> > > Detailed analisis is described in my previous message posted to
> > > current@: "SCHED_ULE sometimes puts P_SA processes into ksq_next
> > > unnecessarily" <20040213063139.71298ea9.taku@cent.saitama-u.ac.jp>
> > >  or
> > > 	http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040213063139.71298ea9.taku
> > > , which didn't get broader audience :(
> > >
> > > Until the problem is fully addressed, I will propose following patch
> > > to be applied. (the least intrusive one attached in the former messag=
e)
> >
> > This patch improves interactivity under heavy load very much.
>
> My system is VERY well-behaved using this change.  (It's 2xSMP).

Here too on an SMP system. This is purely subjective though - I haven't don=
e=20
any actual benchmarking. Any chance of this patch getting in the tree?

Arjan

--Boundary-02=_Ye3VARzm7xzbiKc
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Description: signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQBAV3eY3Ym57eNCXiERAs14AJ0Uwjt4Mrsu2pPsJwMXH51f+hTOugCfUOZ0
P+iCt9Rck2mMF+E1QAN5bfQ=
=N6mZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Boundary-02=_Ye3VARzm7xzbiKc--