From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu May 20 08:11:08 2004 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 7F29216A4CE for ; Thu, 20 May 2004 08:11:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dan.emsphone.com (dan.emsphone.com [199.67.51.101]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2334A43D45 for ; Thu, 20 May 2004 08:11:08 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dan@dan.emsphone.com) Received: (from dan@localhost) by dan.emsphone.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) id i4KFAUrK069034; Thu, 20 May 2004 10:10:30 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from dan) Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 10:10:29 -0500 From: Dan Nelson To: Mikhail Teterin Message-ID: <20040520151029.GA19455@dan.emsphone.com> References: <200405200334.i4K3YlGU027751@corbulon.video-collage.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200405200334.i4K3YlGU027751@corbulon.video-collage.com> X-OS: FreeBSD 5.2-CURRENT X-message-flag: Outlook Error User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: a scheduling question 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, 20 May 2004 15:11:08 -0000 In the last episode (May 19), Mikhail Teterin said: > Here is a top's snapshot from a dual CPU machine. Two lame encoders > compete for the first CPU, while the total idle time is 35.6%. Why is > that? Because they are nice? Is niceness really supposed to allow for > wasted CPU? Thanks! You're probably using SCHED_ULE? Try with 4BSD. -- Dan Nelson dnelson@allantgroup.com