Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2018 09:05:48 -0700 From: Freddie Cash <fjwcash@gmail.com> To: Kevin Oberman <rkoberman@gmail.com> Cc: Eivind Nicolay Evensen <eivinde@terraplane.org>, George Mitchell <george+freebsd@m5p.com>, FreeBSD-STABLE Mailing List <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: kern.sched.quantum: Creepy, sadistic scheduler Message-ID: <CAOjFWZ47YhPFCxxhhxozUTRXY5ywPEpKrtJNaULTv37r5CFj5w@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAN6yY1s7MafF18fPxgRiJVusxcbwEfK%2BGF8dKGedhXE_EUVbJA@mail.gmail.com> References: <pa17m7$82t$1@oper.dinoex.de> <9FDC510B-49D0-4722-B695-6CD38CA20D4A@gmail.com> <8cfdb8a3-86a0-17ba-1e41-ff1912a30ee9@m5p.com> <20180417065617.GA95646@klump.hjerdalen.lokalnett> <CAN6yY1s7MafF18fPxgRiJVusxcbwEfK%2BGF8dKGedhXE_EUVbJA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 8:49 AM, Kevin Oberman <rkoberman@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 tha= t > > SCHED_4BSD works better for single-CPU configurations. You may give tha= t > 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 whe= n > > > that becomes impossible, but at least it isn't here yet. -- Geor= ge > > > > 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 movi= ng > > 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) > > 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 a= nd > 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. > =E2=80=8B > =E2=80=8BThe following has been suggested multiple times over the years on = various mailing lists as the "solution" to making ULE work well for interactive tasks like running X-based desktops (in /etc/sysctl.conf):=E2=80=8B # Tune for desktop usage kern.sched.preempt_thresh=3D224 =E2=80=8BWorks quite nicely on a 4-core AMD Phenom-II X4 960T Processor (3010.09-MHz K8-class CPU) running KDE4 using an Nvidia 210 GPU. --=20 Freddie Cash fjwcash@gmail.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAOjFWZ47YhPFCxxhhxozUTRXY5ywPEpKrtJNaULTv37r5CFj5w>