On Thu, 3 Apr 2003, Bruce Evans wrote: > On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Jeff Roberson wrote: > > > On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Bruce Evans wrote: > > > ... The scaling of niceness was re-broken in -current about 3 > > > years ago to "fix" the priority inversion problems. This is with > > > SCHED_4BSD. SCHED_ULE has larger problems. > > > > Do you know of any problem other than idlepri breakage? I just fixed > > that. I'm about to get on a plane so I don't have time to benchmark it. > > If you have a chance I'd love to see how the most recent fixes effect your > > buildworld time. > > Nothing very important. Many scheduler-related fields shown by ps are > now useless since they only have a dummy entry in them. IIRC, one is > worse than useless since the dummy entry doesn't fit in the field width. >
Ah, right, you're talking about the weighted cpu? Some of these corners need to be cleaned up. I wanted to get other behavior cleaned up first. What is your impression of ULE? What do you think would be required for it to become the default scheduler? I mean, other than lots of time and benchmarking to prove it. I need to work on the cpu rebalancing code a bit more. I also want to do a fuzzy rescheduling mode that will notice how many interactive threads there are and mi_switch less agressively if there are none. My measurements show that this could have a huge perf impact on some workloads. Cheers, Jeff _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
