Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 12:21:53 -0500 (EST) From: Jeff Roberson <jroberson@chesapeake.net> To: Peter Schultz <pmes@bis.midco.net> Cc: current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ULE Interactivity perf patch Message-ID: <20031219122000.K36463-100000@mail.chesapeake.net> In-Reply-To: <3FE32D43.1060104@bis.midco.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003, Peter Schultz wrote: > Jeff Roberson wrote: > > I realized a pitfal in the way that I'm doing slice assignment for > > interactive tasks. I'd like to have as many people test this as possible, > > in case there are unintended consequences. What this patch does is allow > > interactive tasks to have longer time-slices so that they may be more > > efficient. > > > > This patch is intended to fix the poor performance of some interactive > > processes while under high load, especially high load with other > > interactive tasks present. > > > > http://www.chesapeake.net/~jroberson/interact.diff > > > On this dual PII 350 box `make -j 11 buildworld', playing an mp3 with > xmms and unarchiving two separate mozilla distros can cause quite an > interactivity problem. At a more moderate system load things are quite > usable. It's still not BeOS, but BeOS never had the kind of i/o that > FreeBSD has, so I think things are going fairly well. Do these comments apply to ULE with and without the patch? Is there any difference? I suspect that your interactivity problems in this situation are more due to disk and memory pressure. If you were to fire up vi, or a shell, something that's totally memory resident, do they suffer any lag? Also, how well does 4BSD do in this same test? Thanks! Jeff > > Pete... >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20031219122000.K36463-100000>