6.3-RELEASE to 7.0-RELEASE when using the SCHED_4BSD scheduler. After
upgrading my single-cpu amd64 box, 7.0 has much worse latency. When
running a kernel compile, there is a noticeable lag to echo my typing or
scroll my browser windows, and playing an mp3 frequently cuts out for a
second
On Sun, 13 Jul 2008, Kris Kennaway wrote:
Nate Eldredge wrote:
Hi folks,
Hopefully this is a good list for this topic.
It seems like there has been a regression in interactivity from 6.3-RELEASE
to 7.0-RELEASE when using the SCHED_4BSD scheduler. After upgrading my
single-cpu amd64 box
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 01:34:11AM -0700, Nate Eldredge wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jul 2008, Kris Kennaway wrote:
Nate Eldredge wrote:
I wrote a small program which forks two processes that run gettimeofday()
in a tight loop to see how long they get scheduled out. On 6.3 the
maximum
Nate Eldredge wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jul 2008, Kris Kennaway wrote:
Nate Eldredge wrote:
Hi folks,
Hopefully this is a good list for this topic.
It seems like there has been a regression in interactivity from
6.3-RELEASE to 7.0-RELEASE when using the SCHED_4BSD scheduler.
After upgrading my
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 03:11:23AM +0200, Kris Kennaway wrote:
It seems like there has been a regression in interactivity from
6.3-RELEASE to 7.0-RELEASE when using the SCHED_4BSD scheduler. After
upgrading my single-cpu amd64 box, 7.0 has much worse latency. When
running a kernel
the SCHED_4BSD scheduler. After
upgrading my single-cpu amd64 box, 7.0 has much worse latency. When
running a kernel compile, there is a noticeable lag to echo my typing or
scroll my browser windows, and playing an mp3 frequently cuts out for a
second or two. This did not happen on 6.3-RELEASE
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 12:47 AM, Eugene Grosbein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 03:11:23AM +0200, Kris Kennaway wrote:
It seems like there has been a regression in interactivity from
6.3-RELEASE to 7.0-RELEASE when using the SCHED_4BSD scheduler. After
upgrading my single
Hi folks,
Hopefully this is a good list for this topic.
It seems like there has been a regression in interactivity from
6.3-RELEASE to 7.0-RELEASE when using the SCHED_4BSD scheduler. After
upgrading my single-cpu amd64 box, 7.0 has much worse latency. When
running a kernel compile
Nate Eldredge wrote:
Hi folks,
Hopefully this is a good list for this topic.
It seems like there has been a regression in interactivity from
6.3-RELEASE to 7.0-RELEASE when using the SCHED_4BSD scheduler. After
upgrading my single-cpu amd64 box, 7.0 has much worse latency. When
running
--- Steve Watt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
N)?
Problem? Scheduler activations may be used to
build M:N
systems, but that is not a requirement -- you can
easily
build a 1:1 (all threads are system contention
scope) system
with activations.
But the POSIX std allows
[ Attempted to clean up citations, apologies if I mis-attribute
something ]
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Kamal R. Prasad [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kamal--- Julian Elischer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Julian Kamal R. Prasad wrote:
Kamal--- Julian Elischer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
JulianKamal
--- Steve Watt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
No, POSIX 1003.1 is the standard, the thread portion
was known for
some time as 1003.1c, but was combined in with the
base.
Ok -I meant the POSIX std when I answered Julian.
NPTL is a particular (less brain damaged than
LinuxThreads)
In [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Kamal R. Prasad [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Steve Watt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[ snip ]
NPTL is a particular (less brain damaged than
LinuxThreads)
implementation of the POSIX thread standard.
Likewise, scheduler activations are a decent
implementation of
doesn't
This looks like a linux thing to me...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPTL
If its a spec, i'd like to know how.
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, Julian Elischer wrote:
Kamal R. Prasad wrote:
--- Julian Elischer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kamal R. Prasad wrote:
--- Lucas Holt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wouldn't
-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Julian Elischer
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 2:50 PM
To: Sarath Kamisetty
Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org; Ashwin Chandra
Subject: Re: sched_4BSD
Sarath Kamisetty wrote:
Hi,
How does Linux handle this ? Any idea ?
If you make
On March 2, 2005 12:09 pm, Julian Elischer wrote:
NPTL?
New Pthreads Library from Library?
isn't that GPL'd?
Native Posix Threads Library
All I know about it is the name. :)
--
Freddie Cash, CCNT CCLPHelpdesk / Network Support Tech.
School District 73 (250) 377-HELP
On Mon, Feb 28, 2005, Julian Elischer wrote:
Ashwin Chandra wrote:
I wanted to get some clarification about the 4BSD scheduler. I am sort of
confused why there are two forms of scheduling, one done between processes
and
another done between threads in a process. The priority calculations
Kamal R. Prasad wrote:
--- Julian Elischer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kamal R. Prasad wrote:
--- Lucas Holt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wouldn't a multi threaded program potentially need
more cpu time than
vi?
No. That is not a given.
Multithreaded apps are
--- Julian Elischer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kamal R. Prasad wrote:
--- Julian Elischer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kamal R. Prasad wrote:
--- Lucas Holt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wouldn't a multi threaded program potentially
need
more cpu time than
Kamal R. Prasad wrote:
--- Julian Elischer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
so how does that differ from what we have ... a
native pthreads library?
I just said if it was conformant with NPTL, thread and
process scheduling would co-exist.
in theory it does in FreeBSD's pthreads library.
(though it needs
Wouldn't a multi threaded program potentially need more cpu time than
vi? Multithreaded apps are created to do a lot of computation or
because they have a lot of concurrent activity that might block right?
On Mar 1, 2005, at 2:49 PM, Julian Elischer wrote:
If you make 1000 threads, you get
--- Lucas Holt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wouldn't a multi threaded program potentially need
more cpu time than
vi?
No. That is not a given.
Multithreaded apps are created to do a lot of
computation or
because they have a lot of concurrent activity that
might block right?
Threads
Lucas Holt wrote:
Wouldn't a multi threaded program potentially need more cpu time than
vi? Multithreaded apps are created to do a lot of computation or
because they have a lot of concurrent activity that might block right?
Isn't that what nice is for?
if (only) two processes are using all the
Kamal R. Prasad wrote:
--- Lucas Holt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wouldn't a multi threaded program potentially need
more cpu time than
vi?
No. That is not a given.
Multithreaded apps are created to do a lot of
computation or
because they have a lot of concurrent activity that
might
--- Julian Elischer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kamal R. Prasad wrote:
--- Lucas Holt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wouldn't a multi threaded program potentially need
more cpu time than
vi?
No. That is not a given.
Multithreaded apps are created to do a lot of
Hi,
How does Linux handle this ? Any idea ?
Thanks,
Sarat
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 00:26:10 -0800, Julian Elischer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ashwin Chandra wrote:
I wanted to get some clarification about the 4BSD scheduler. I am sort of
confused why there are two forms of scheduling, one done
Sarath Kamisetty wrote:
Hi,
How does Linux handle this ? Any idea ?
If you make 1000 threads, you get 1000 slots on the scheduler. (last
time I looked..
Let me know if I'm wrong).
The guy next to you with 'vi' gets 1 slot..
who gets more cpu?
Thanks,
Sarat
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 00:26:10
Julian Elischer wrote:
Sarath Kamisetty wrote:
Hi,
How does Linux handle this ? Any idea ?
If you make 1000 threads, you get 1000 slots on the scheduler. (last
time I looked..
Let me know if I'm wrong).
The guy next to you with 'vi' gets 1 slot..
who gets more cpu?
And how is that different
João Carlos Mendes Luís wrote:
Julian Elischer wrote:
Sarath Kamisetty wrote:
Hi,
How does Linux handle this ? Any idea ?
If you make 1000 threads, you get 1000 slots on the scheduler. (last
time I looked..
Let me know if I'm wrong).
The guy next to you with 'vi' gets 1 slot..
who gets more
I wanted to get some clarification about the 4BSD scheduler. I am sort of
confused why there are two forms of scheduling, one done between processes and
another done between threads in a process. The priority calculations seem to be
done only with processes and I assume that the global run
Ashwin Chandra wrote:
I wanted to get some clarification about the 4BSD scheduler. I am sort of
confused why there are two forms of scheduling, one done between processes and
another done between threads in a process. The priority calculations seem to be
done only with processes and I assume that
31 matches
Mail list logo
