From owner-freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Tue Apr 17 15:49:34 2018 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BD3EF8539A for ; Tue, 17 Apr 2018 15:49:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kob6558@gmail.com) Received: from mail-ua0-x229.google.com (mail-ua0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c08::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BD8846DFEE for ; Tue, 17 Apr 2018 15:49:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kob6558@gmail.com) Received: by mail-ua0-x229.google.com with SMTP id o34so12890343uae.9 for ; Tue, 17 Apr 2018 08:49:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=Sl3q8Gt6DrNeVvHph9hhlN2QL08uJ4ZSMSBY+vvpeJo=; b=F2Qjf//GtRs2zMFXHX3G1KFo3ttwieo7Aul5lf900xdlhTiNaba406Ue2q7I8Jknxh 1/2zHXppYkuOmQuJe0BvO29r0svd+QugPiycvv719BmgYaYSB7ac+BpH0CTBTXzxOSFT wCMuN59nQUHb4nWY5qVA+ZtMgs1E9fFCyd9sExCmlK3bG1Pgj2GDAIJ1VQxgTGAG+wW8 ZDvR1eAJXyOi+CEpr8ohtPDNPoPrKCdE/S8B3gCuSkInhhocG4RNSBBXI40HFeDOWIK2 gX7gq7VIi/I2TmqkfAUJ+eR7l1WdgW13RrDQxvhuEBPGL8NyspN0kkcGCkjiIIX4rW59 ps+g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Sl3q8Gt6DrNeVvHph9hhlN2QL08uJ4ZSMSBY+vvpeJo=; b=UckGnSOKqh6FucKnUOmB61IVTrV4WBjkys01Dmv+Z7w+pex8PYqNgj2W1l2n4auuKr l1uOAE3l7QEEDRuRXuHzkZUoAaNoND152Bo5ntU2o5r6nl0dXcrUTttmexObU3Eh6otg +OtwLzBMoDfsIhVkMe4dRdEPyEJqXhiVrzCDLLMI/OdYmFn4vQKgRpFn7VthPQyY8KnE jp+bFAY5FgcojOf7T4l1nBMG6ZA3AJN1tJDtdPgJbddGHp8RUOwefMO8iAw5afDWXf2G xZg4EruOCDD54u+XvveELkpBpggMQM6trCh6SutTyrFW5DbeN2hlowf6lftE3wAPKZ9J Ma7g== X-Gm-Message-State: ALQs6tDvzd1A3wBSt4sKbqeYp5qEgQpok8yM2mKezft71/venk6OH47l madzJLOhV90Qw6lbcGmVYxK7NjLvHZTV3zuPG88L/eEp X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx4/1XvcyNrsp0I4dfe7F6jS6vIn35MortSxmJNNc+HZYQcZJ5vzThSUPt1Cvw78H2jT2a8UBzM2Kfm7uPio48GU= X-Received: by 10.159.46.1 with SMTP id t1mr2018656uaj.114.1523980173158; Tue, 17 Apr 2018 08:49:33 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: kob6558@gmail.com Received: by 10.103.91.5 with HTTP; Tue, 17 Apr 2018 08:49:32 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20180417065617.GA95646@klump.hjerdalen.lokalnett> References: <9FDC510B-49D0-4722-B695-6CD38CA20D4A@gmail.com> <8cfdb8a3-86a0-17ba-1e41-ff1912a30ee9@m5p.com> <20180417065617.GA95646@klump.hjerdalen.lokalnett> From: Kevin Oberman Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2018 08:49:32 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 3MiQ6sfgbasxs7ZlReMBUiQgRVw Message-ID: Subject: Re: kern.sched.quantum: Creepy, sadistic scheduler To: Eivind Nicolay Evensen Cc: George Mitchell , FreeBSD-STABLE Mailing List Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.25 X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.25 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2018 15:49:34 -0000 On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 11:56 PM, Eivind Nicolay Evensen < eivinde@terraplane.org> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 09:32:58AM -0400, George Mitchell wrote: > > On 04/04/18 06:39, Alban Hertroys wrote: > > > [...] > > > That said, SCHED_ULE (the default scheduler for quite a while now) was > designed with multi-CPU configurations in mind and there are claims that > SCHED_4BSD works better for single-CPU configurations. You may give that a > try, if you're not already on SCHED_4BSD. > > > [...] > > > > A small, disgruntled community of FreeBSD users who have never seen > > proof that SCHED_ULE is better than SCHED_4BSD in any environment > > continue to regularly recompile with SCHED_4BSD. I dread the day when > > that becomes impossible, but at least it isn't here yet. -- George > > Indeed 4bsd is better in my case aswell. While for some unknown to me > reason > ule performed a bit better in the 10.x series than before, in 11.x > it again is in my case not usable. > > Mouse freezes for around half a second with even frequency by just moving > it around in x11. Using 4bsd instead makes the problem go away. > I'm actually very happy that ule became worse again because going > back to 4bsd yet again also gave improved performance from other > dreadfully slow but (to me) still useful programs, like darktable. > > With 4bsd, when adjusting shadows and highlights it is possible to see > what I > do when moving sliders. With ule it has never been better than waiting > 10-20-30 seconds to see where it was able to read a slider position > and update display, when working on images around 10500x10500 greyscale. > > It's not single cpu/single core either: > CPU: AMD FX(tm)-6300 Six-Core Processor (3817.45-MHz K8-class > CPU) > > > > > -- > Eivind > My experience has long been that 4BSD works far better for interactive, X based systems than ULE. Even on 10 I saw long, annoying pauses with ULE and I don't se those with 4BSD. I'd really like to see it better known that this is often the case. BTW, my system is 2 core/4 thread Sandybridge. -- Kevin Oberman, Part time kid herder and retired Network Engineer E-mail: rkoberman@gmail.com PGP Fingerprint: D03FB98AFA78E3B78C1694B318AB39EF1B055683