On Thu, Apr 03, 2003 at 02:31:01AM -0500, Jeff Roberson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Interactivity is still worse under ULE. It's quite noticeable and I
tested it on two SMP boxes by running two simple loops in kind of:
for ((;;)); do let $((4+4)); done # this is bash specific
The loops ran
On (2003/04/02 01:54), Jeff Roberson wrote:
It probably still needs some tweaking but it seems to be MUCH better now.
New algorithm entirely.
nice +20 processes will not run if anything else wants to.
Some of us have been waiting for that behaviour for a long time (long
before you started
On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
On (2003/04/02 01:54), Jeff Roberson wrote:
It probably still needs some tweaking but it seems to be MUCH better now.
New algorithm entirely.
nice +20 processes will not run if anything else wants to.
Some of us have been waiting for that
On (2003/04/02 21:48), Bruce Evans wrote:
Some of us have been waiting for that behaviour for a long time (long
before you started working on ULE).
Er, this is the normal behaviour in FreeBSD-3.0 through FreeBSD-4.8,
so you shouldn't have waited more than negative 4 years for it :-).
The
On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
On (2003/04/02 21:48), Bruce Evans wrote:
Some of us have been waiting for that behaviour for a long time (long
before you started working on ULE).
Er, this is the normal behaviour in FreeBSD-3.0 through FreeBSD-4.8,
so you shouldn't have
On Wed, 2 Apr 2003 16:24, Jeff Roberson wrote:
It probably still needs some tweaking but it seems to be MUCH better now.
New algorithm entirely.
nice +20 processes will not run if anything else wants to.
idleprio is still not working correctly. bde reports that this causes a
3% perf
On Thu, 3 Apr 2003, Daniel O'Connor wrote:
On Wed, 2 Apr 2003 16:24, Jeff Roberson wrote:
It probably still needs some tweaking but it seems to be MUCH better now.
New algorithm entirely.
nice +20 processes will not run if anything else wants to.
idleprio is still not working
On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Bruce Evans wrote:
On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
On (2003/04/02 01:54), Jeff Roberson wrote:
It probably still needs some tweaking but it seems to be MUCH better now.
New algorithm entirely.
nice +20 processes will not run if anything else wants
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
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
On Thu, 3 Apr 2003, Daniel O'Connor wrote:
On Wed, 2 Apr 2003 16:24, Jeff Roberson wrote:
It probably still needs some tweaking but it seems to be MUCH better now.
New algorithm entirely.
nice +20 processes will not run if anything else wants to.
idleprio is still not working
On Thu, 3 Apr 2003, Bruce Evans wrote:
On Thu, 3 Apr 2003, Daniel O'Connor wrote:
On Wed, 2 Apr 2003 16:24, Jeff Roberson wrote:
It probably still needs some tweaking but it seems to be MUCH better now.
New algorithm entirely.
nice +20 processes will not run if anything else
On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 07:35:59PM -0500, Jeff Roberson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
On Thu, 3 Apr 2003, Vallo Kallaste wrote:
On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 07:35:59PM -0500, Jeff Roberson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
14 matches
Mail list logo
