Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 15:35:15 +1100 From: Alex R <alex@mailinglist.ahhyes.net> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Scheduler weirdness Message-ID: <4AD2B203.8030405@mailinglist.ahhyes.net> In-Reply-To: <20091012043358.GA39364@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> References: <6729ad0409e449f8dbda69ecd8feb618.squirrel@webmail.lerctr.org> <20091012014846.GB38325@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <fe073255a48a675c0a8ab5bb8c105e61.squirrel@webmail.lerctr.org> <20091012023912.GA38822@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <4AD29937.2040004@mailinglist.ahhyes.net> <20091012043358.GA39364@troutmask.apl.washington.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Steve Kargl wrote: > On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 01:49:27PM +1100, Alex R wrote: > >> Steve Kargl wrote: >> >>> So, you have 4 cpus and 4 folding-at-home processes and you're >>> trying to use the system with other apps? Switch to 4BSD. >>> >>> >>> >> I thought SCHED_ULE was meant to be a much better choice under an SMP >> environment. Why are you suggesting he rebuild his kernel and use the >> legacy scheduler? >> >> > > If you have N cpus and N+1 numerical intensitive applications, > ULE may have poor performance compared to 4BSD. In OP's case, > he has 4 cpus and 4 numerical intensity (?) applications. He, > however, also is trying to use the system in some interactive > way. > > Ah ok. Is this just an accepted thing by the freebsd dev's or are they trying to fix it?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4AD2B203.8030405>