On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 08:00:35PM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > From: Bob Beck <b...@openbsd.org> > > Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 09:20:35 -0600 > > > > this is cool .. but > > > > I would be interested in someone comparing server workloads, as > > opposed to interactive GUI response, using this. > > > > I wouldn't be surprised that inspiriation from BFS would produce > > better interactive response, my bigger concern would be does this > > adversely impact how we deal with non-interactive workloads. > > One other important case to test is network packet forwarding. Some > of our network stack is now running inside a kernel thread. And any > changes in the scheduling behaviour have the potential of having a > significant impact there. > > Another interesting case is the page zeroing thread. It relies on > priority-based scheduling to make sure it only runs if we have nothing > better to do. > > So I'm skeptical about this BFS scheduler. Don't get me wrong; I do > think the scheduler needs attention. But I'm not sure a scheduler > designed for interactive desktop use is the best option for OpenBSD.
IMHO current OpenBSD scheduler *is* designed for interactive programs too, that's why I keep using OpenBSD for real-time audio and didn't switch to Linux or OS X or whatever. The browsers problems seem caused by the way pthreads behave; browsers appear to spin. With the proposed scheduler they spin less. But the real question is why they spin at all? My 2 cents.
