Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 11:29:24 -0700 From: Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> To: Barney Cordoba <barney_cordoba@yahoo.com> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ULE scheduling oddity Message-ID: <20080717182924.GA417@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> In-Reply-To: <452221.38826.qm@web63902.mail.re1.yahoo.com> References: <20080716211317.GA92354@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <452221.38826.qm@web63902.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 09:12:45AM -0700, Barney Cordoba wrote: > > > Actually, 10 copies of the little app are the only things > > running except > > top(1) and few sleeping system services (e.g., nfsd and > > sshd). Apparently, > > you missed the "41 processes: 11 running, 30 > > sleeping" line above. > > > > Your apparent argument that somehow every cpu cycle can be > sliced equally and automagically is as silly I do not expect a single cpu cycle to be split evenly between the running processes. I do however expect that 8e12 cpu cycles to be split in a better distribution. > as the expectation that a first generation scheduler will > exhibit 100% efficiency across 8 cpus. ULE in -current is no longer 1st generation. I tested the original ULE when jeffr committed and reported a few panics and provided some of the first feedback of interactivity problems. Perhaps, I should have sent my original email directly to jeffr instead of the freebsd-current list where others might find the observation of interest. If one expects to see future improvements in ULE, then providing feedback is crucial. Apparently, you have a different opinion. -- Steve
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080717182924.GA417>