Re: Status of SCHED_ULE?
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003, Jeff Roberson wrote: > Are you running seti, rc4, etc? Any programs that sit in the background > and consume 100% of the cpu? > I'm running KDE (using libc_r), and run setiathome and/or dnetc in the background. I've also tried killing the background tasks, but it makes little difference. I also use moused and /dev/sysmouse for X. I've even tried renicing moused to negative nice values, and that doesn't change much either. The mouse gets 'sticky' under moderate/heavy load, as other people have described. I haven't swapped back to SCHED_4BSD recently to compare, but I'm sure it was smoother before I switched. -- David Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] "The future just ain't what it used to be" ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Status of SCHED_ULE?
On 2003-09-30 02:07 +0300, Aggelos Economopoulos wrote: > On Tuesday 30 September 2003 01:12, Jeff Roberson wrote: > > On Tue, 30 Sep 2003, Aggelos Economopoulos wrote: > > > On Monday 29 September 2003 08:05, Jeff Roberson wrote: > > > > On Sun, 28 Sep 2003, Arjan van Leeuwen wrote: > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > It happens when compiling stuff, when loading complicated pages in > > > > > Mozilla Firebird, and when logging out of GNOME 2.4 (the 'background > > > > > fade' animation brings my Athlon XP 2000+ to its knees when I use > > > > > SCHED_ULE). > > > > > > > > > > Arjan > > > > > > > > Gnome seems to be a common theme. Are you also using libkse? There > > > > could be some interaction there. > > > I'm having the same experience, no gnome involved. > > > I'm experiencing similar stuff with kde + libthr (kernel built with > > > sources from 18/9). > > > > > > Aggelos > > > > Are you running seti, rc4, etc? Any programs that sit in the background > > and consume 100% of the cpu? > > No. But interactive performance deteriorates instantly when compiling or > linking two or more programs (of course I expect it to deteriorate, but the > gui is _much_ more jerky with SCHED_ULE than with SCHED_4BSD). Let me know if > I can help with any more info. > I second that. I'm not running anything heavy, background or not. Windowmaker, a few desktops, a bunch of aterms -- that's more or less all. The most easily noticeable pessimization is probably Firebird (or Mozilla if you prefer). Compile anything, and try opening or closing a few tabs, or navigating. It's rather painful. This is on a Thunderbird 1200 sporting 512MB RAM. It's not exactly fast by today's standards, but operation is much smoother under SCHED_4BSD. -- Munish Chopra ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Status of SCHED_ULE?
On Tuesday 30 September 2003 01:12, Jeff Roberson wrote: > On Tue, 30 Sep 2003, Aggelos Economopoulos wrote: > > On Monday 29 September 2003 08:05, Jeff Roberson wrote: > > > On Sun, 28 Sep 2003, Arjan van Leeuwen wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > > > It happens when compiling stuff, when loading complicated pages in > > > > Mozilla Firebird, and when logging out of GNOME 2.4 (the 'background > > > > fade' animation brings my Athlon XP 2000+ to its knees when I use > > > > SCHED_ULE). > > > > > > > > Arjan > > > > > > Gnome seems to be a common theme. Are you also using libkse? There > > > could be some interaction there. > > > > I'm experiencing similar stuff with kde + libthr (kernel built with > > sources from 18/9). > > > > Aggelos > > Are you running seti, rc4, etc? Any programs that sit in the background > and consume 100% of the cpu? No. But interactive performance deteriorates instantly when compiling or linking two or more programs (of course I expect it to deteriorate, but the gui is _much_ more jerky with SCHED_ULE than with SCHED_4BSD). Let me know if I can help with any more info. Aggelos ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Status of SCHED_ULE?
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003, Aggelos Economopoulos wrote: > On Monday 29 September 2003 08:05, Jeff Roberson wrote: > > On Sun, 28 Sep 2003, Arjan van Leeuwen wrote: > [...] > > > It happens when compiling stuff, when loading complicated pages in > > > Mozilla Firebird, and when logging out of GNOME 2.4 (the 'background > > > fade' animation brings my Athlon XP 2000+ to its knees when I use > > > SCHED_ULE). > > > > > > Arjan > > > > Gnome seems to be a common theme. Are you also using libkse? There could > > be some interaction there. > > I'm experiencing similar stuff with kde + libthr (kernel built with sources > from 18/9). > > Aggelos > Are you running seti, rc4, etc? Any programs that sit in the background and consume 100% of the cpu? ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Status of SCHED_ULE?
On Monday 29 September 2003 08:05, Jeff Roberson wrote: > On Sun, 28 Sep 2003, Arjan van Leeuwen wrote: [...] > > It happens when compiling stuff, when loading complicated pages in > > Mozilla Firebird, and when logging out of GNOME 2.4 (the 'background > > fade' animation brings my Athlon XP 2000+ to its knees when I use > > SCHED_ULE). > > > > Arjan > > Gnome seems to be a common theme. Are you also using libkse? There could > be some interaction there. I'm experiencing similar stuff with kde + libthr (kernel built with sources from 18/9). Aggelos ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Status of SCHED_ULE?
Hi ! > I use the /dev/sysmouse and moused, not quite sure > why but that's how I've always used my mouse (PS2 or USB) with > FreeBSD. Could this have something to do with the mouse feeling > sloppy? Hmmm, I never used moused and always /dev/psm0 in X. Still experience the same thing. Cheers Peter ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Status of SCHED_ULE?
On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 01:04:49AM -0400, Jeff Roberson wrote: > On Sun, 28 Sep 2003, Morten Rodal wrote: > > > On Sat, Sep 27, 2003 at 11:31:25PM -0400, Jeff Roberson wrote: > > > On Sat, 27 Sep 2003, Morten Rodal wrote: > > > > It has improved quite a bit lately, and is now also working with KSE. > > > > However, the mouse will get sluggish whenever the computer is under > > > > bursts of load (i.e. a compile) > > > > > > > > > > I have not had this experience. Can you give me details of your machine > > > and the kind of load that causes slugishness? I'll correct it as soon as > > > I can identify it. > > > > > > > The machine is an dual Pentium 2 300MHz, and I'm running gnome 2.4. > > I do also experience this with my computer at school, a single Pentium3 > > 733MHz. > > > > The load isn't very complicated, usually just gnome 2.4 and mozilla > > firebird running. If I then do anything that requires lots of cpu, > > like a compile of a program, the interactivity drops fast. > > > > On the dual machine I have also experienced a *HUGE* increase in the > > time for "portupgrade -ar" to complete. I am not familiar with how > > portupgrade works, but it seems to spawn a few make's and sort's, but > > I am not sure why it is currently using 3 hours instead of 10 minutes > > to complete! (This was tested when there was no packages to upgrade, > > which shouldn't take long) > > > > Both machines (this dual and the one at school) are running with a > > libmap.conf in order to use libkse, is this perhaps affecting the > > performance of ULE? > > It could be. Can you try with libthr or libc_r and let me know? > I tried converting to libthr at school and started a "portupgrade -ar". (Of course I had restarted all the applications that uses threads) There was no difference in the interactivity, but I came to think of one other thing. I use the /dev/sysmouse and moused, not quite sure why but that's how I've always used my mouse (PS2 or USB) with FreeBSD. Could this have something to do with the mouse feeling sloppy? -- Morten Rodal ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Status of SCHED_ULE?
On Monday 29 September 2003 07:05, Jeff Roberson wrote: > On Sun, 28 Sep 2003, Arjan van Leeuwen wrote: > > On Sunday 28 September 2003 14:38, Matt wrote: > > > Morten Rodal wrote: > > > > On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 01:26:24PM +0100, Matt wrote: > > > >>Morten Rodal wrote: > > > >>>On Sat, Sep 27, 2003 at 11:31:25PM -0400, Jeff Roberson wrote: > > > On Sat, 27 Sep 2003, Morten Rodal wrote: > > > >It has improved quite a bit lately, and is now also working with > > > > KSE. However, the mouse will get sluggish whenever the computer > > > > is under bursts of load (i.e. a compile) > > > > > > I have not had this experience. Can you give me details of your > > > machine and the kind of load that causes slugishness? I'll > > > correct it as soon as I can identify it. > > > >>> > > > >>>The machine is an dual Pentium 2 300MHz, and I'm running gnome 2.4. > > > >>>I do also experience this with my computer at school, a single > > > >>> Pentium3 733MHz. > > > >>> > > > >>>The load isn't very complicated, usually just gnome 2.4 and mozilla > > > >>>firebird running. If I then do anything that requires lots of cpu, > > > >>>like a compile of a program, the interactivity drops fast. > > > >>> > > > >>>On the dual machine I have also experienced a *HUGE* increase in the > > > >>>time for "portupgrade -ar" to complete. I am not familiar with how > > > >>>portupgrade works, but it seems to spawn a few make's and sort's, > > > >>> but I am not sure why it is currently using 3 hours instead of 10 > > > >>> minutes to complete! (This was tested when there was no packages to > > > >>> upgrade, which shouldn't take long) > > > >>> > > > >>>Both machines (this dual and the one at school) are running with a > > > >>>libmap.conf in order to use libkse, is this perhaps affecting the > > > >>>performance of ULE? > > > >>> > > > >>>I am not sure how useful this is to you, but if you have any other > > > >>>pointers as to what I should look at just ask. > > > >> > > > >>Are you running 5.1-release or 5.1-current? > > > >> > > > >>I ask because I have used ULE on two different kernels so far on this > > > >>box. One was 5.1-release running gnome2, mozilla, xmms. On this the > > > >>mouse stutters really badly whenever anything is being compiled. > > > >> > > > >>However on the 5.1-current kernel this behavior no longer happens and > > > >>the mouse is fine. > > > >> > > > >>I suspect ULE has had a few enhancements between the release and now. > > > > > > > > I am running 5.1-current > > > > > > > > Dual machine: > > > > FreeBSD slurp.rodal.no 5.1-CURRENT FreeBSD 5.1-CURRENT #3: Thu Sep 25 > > > > 04:03:23 CEST 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/slurp > > > > i386 > > > > > > > > School computer: > > > > FreeBSD hauk10.idi.ntnu.no 5.1-CURRENT FreeBSD 5.1-CURRENT #2: Fri > > > > Sep 26 09:12:55 CEST 2003 > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/hauk10 i386 > > > > > > Ahh I tell you the other difference. I had a USB mouse when I tried ULE > > > with 5.1-release and it stuttered. It's just a ps2 one on the current > > > kernel where it's not stuttering. > > > > > > Matt. > > > > I have a PS/2 mouse, I run -CURRENT from 2 days ago, and I experience the > > stuttering too. > > > > It happens when compiling stuff, when loading complicated pages in > > Mozilla Firebird, and when logging out of GNOME 2.4 (the 'background > > fade' animation brings my Athlon XP 2000+ to its knees when I use > > SCHED_ULE). > > > > Arjan > > Gnome seems to be a common theme. Are you also using libkse? There could > be some interaction there. Yes, I'm using libkse. It's also worth mentioning that it also happens in KDE, but only under the heavy load of a 'make buildworld' or compiling something else, or when for example extracting a big bzip2 file. Arjan ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Status of SCHED_ULE?
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003, Arjan van Leeuwen wrote: > On Sunday 28 September 2003 14:38, Matt wrote: > > Morten Rodal wrote: > > > On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 01:26:24PM +0100, Matt wrote: > > >>Morten Rodal wrote: > > >>>On Sat, Sep 27, 2003 at 11:31:25PM -0400, Jeff Roberson wrote: > > On Sat, 27 Sep 2003, Morten Rodal wrote: > > >It has improved quite a bit lately, and is now also working with KSE. > > >However, the mouse will get sluggish whenever the computer is under > > >bursts of load (i.e. a compile) > > > > I have not had this experience. Can you give me details of your > > machine and the kind of load that causes slugishness? I'll correct it > > as soon as I can identify it. > > >>> > > >>>The machine is an dual Pentium 2 300MHz, and I'm running gnome 2.4. > > >>>I do also experience this with my computer at school, a single Pentium3 > > >>>733MHz. > > >>> > > >>>The load isn't very complicated, usually just gnome 2.4 and mozilla > > >>>firebird running. If I then do anything that requires lots of cpu, > > >>>like a compile of a program, the interactivity drops fast. > > >>> > > >>>On the dual machine I have also experienced a *HUGE* increase in the > > >>>time for "portupgrade -ar" to complete. I am not familiar with how > > >>>portupgrade works, but it seems to spawn a few make's and sort's, but > > >>>I am not sure why it is currently using 3 hours instead of 10 minutes > > >>>to complete! (This was tested when there was no packages to upgrade, > > >>>which shouldn't take long) > > >>> > > >>>Both machines (this dual and the one at school) are running with a > > >>>libmap.conf in order to use libkse, is this perhaps affecting the > > >>>performance of ULE? > > >>> > > >>>I am not sure how useful this is to you, but if you have any other > > >>>pointers as to what I should look at just ask. > > >> > > >>Are you running 5.1-release or 5.1-current? > > >> > > >>I ask because I have used ULE on two different kernels so far on this > > >>box. One was 5.1-release running gnome2, mozilla, xmms. On this the > > >>mouse stutters really badly whenever anything is being compiled. > > >> > > >>However on the 5.1-current kernel this behavior no longer happens and > > >>the mouse is fine. > > >> > > >>I suspect ULE has had a few enhancements between the release and now. > > > > > > I am running 5.1-current > > > > > > Dual machine: > > > FreeBSD slurp.rodal.no 5.1-CURRENT FreeBSD 5.1-CURRENT #3: Thu Sep 25 > > > 04:03:23 CEST 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/slurp > > > i386 > > > > > > School computer: > > > FreeBSD hauk10.idi.ntnu.no 5.1-CURRENT FreeBSD 5.1-CURRENT #2: Fri Sep 26 > > > 09:12:55 CEST 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/hauk10 > > > i386 > > > > Ahh I tell you the other difference. I had a USB mouse when I tried ULE > > with 5.1-release and it stuttered. It's just a ps2 one on the current > > kernel where it's not stuttering. > > > > Matt. > > I have a PS/2 mouse, I run -CURRENT from 2 days ago, and I experience the > stuttering too. > > It happens when compiling stuff, when loading complicated pages in Mozilla > Firebird, and when logging out of GNOME 2.4 (the 'background fade' animation > brings my Athlon XP 2000+ to its knees when I use SCHED_ULE). > > Arjan > Gnome seems to be a common theme. Are you also using libkse? There could be some interaction there. Thanks, Jeff ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Status of SCHED_ULE?
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003, Morten Rodal wrote: > On Sat, Sep 27, 2003 at 11:31:25PM -0400, Jeff Roberson wrote: > > On Sat, 27 Sep 2003, Morten Rodal wrote: > > > It has improved quite a bit lately, and is now also working with KSE. > > > However, the mouse will get sluggish whenever the computer is under > > > bursts of load (i.e. a compile) > > > > > > > I have not had this experience. Can you give me details of your machine > > and the kind of load that causes slugishness? I'll correct it as soon as > > I can identify it. > > > > The machine is an dual Pentium 2 300MHz, and I'm running gnome 2.4. > I do also experience this with my computer at school, a single Pentium3 > 733MHz. > > The load isn't very complicated, usually just gnome 2.4 and mozilla > firebird running. If I then do anything that requires lots of cpu, > like a compile of a program, the interactivity drops fast. > > On the dual machine I have also experienced a *HUGE* increase in the > time for "portupgrade -ar" to complete. I am not familiar with how > portupgrade works, but it seems to spawn a few make's and sort's, but > I am not sure why it is currently using 3 hours instead of 10 minutes > to complete! (This was tested when there was no packages to upgrade, > which shouldn't take long) > > Both machines (this dual and the one at school) are running with a > libmap.conf in order to use libkse, is this perhaps affecting the > performance of ULE? It could be. Can you try with libthr or libc_r and let me know? > > I am not sure how useful this is to you, but if you have any other > pointers as to what I should look at just ask. > > -- > Morten Rodal > > ___ > [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Status of SCHED_ULE?
On Sunday 28 September 2003 16.40, Peter Kadau wrote: > Hi ! > > > > I have a PS/2 mouse, I run -CURRENT from 2 days ago, and I experience > > > the stuttering too. > > Me too, though I have to relativize this. > My configuration is UP with a pentium 4, 2.4 GHz running > gnome2, evolution, mozilla and some gnome-terminals. I am running --current on my laptop which is 2.5 Ghz P4 / 512 MB RAM, and during buildworld/or make install of the KDE metaport I have no problems at all using _ULE If I cp or mv a large file 2GB or larger I still see no problems -- Matt Douhan www.fruitsalad.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] ping elvis elvis is alive ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Status of SCHED_ULE?
Hi ! > > I have a PS/2 mouse, I run -CURRENT from 2 days ago, and I experience the > > stuttering too. Me too, though I have to relativize this. My configuration is UP with a pentium 4, 2.4 GHz running gnome2, evolution, mozilla and some gnome-terminals. With 4BSD, the mouse cycles through non-responding, jumping and smoothly sliding under compilation load. Whereas under ULE, it is sort of constantly stuttering. On the other hand I experienced satisfactory responsiveness even under a load of > 4, one of the most irritating exceptions being the stuttering mouse (though with 4BSD, responsiveness is beyond all hope...) There is another exception which is far more frustrating. Using vi (or view) on a file and typing 'j' on the last line. It'll take approximately half a second per line scrolling by. (Still talking of compilation load here.) Cheers Peter ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Status of SCHED_ULE?
Il Dom, 2003-09-28 alle 15:45, Arjan van Leeuwen ha scritto: > > Ahh I tell you the other difference. I had a USB mouse when I tried ULE > > with 5.1-release and it stuttered. It's just a ps2 one on the current > > kernel where it's not stuttering. > > > > Matt. > > I have a PS/2 mouse, I run -CURRENT from 2 days ago, and I experience the > stuttering too. > > It happens when compiling stuff, when loading complicated pages in Mozilla > Firebird, and when logging out of GNOME 2.4 (the 'background fade' animation > brings my Athlon XP 2000+ to its knees when I use SCHED_ULE). Same problem here, with a PS/2 Mouse on my Athlon XP 2000+, usign Firebird, Ximian Evolution and others applications with SCHED_ULE. -- Rionda aka Matteo Riondato G.U.F.I Staff Member (http://www.gufi.org) BSD-FAQ-it Main Developer (http://www.gufi.org/~rionda) GPG key at: http://www.riondabsd.net/riondagpg.asc Sent from: kaiser.sig11.org running FreeBSD-5.1-CURRENT signature.asc Description: Questa parte del messaggio =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=E8?= firmata
Re: Status of SCHED_ULE?
> I have not had this experience. Can you give me details of your machine > and the kind of load that causes slugishness? I'll correct it as soon as > I can identify it. Using Linux-Firebird with some Java applets shows this effect, i.e. completelly bogging down X to a unusable state. Also, it's very easy to archive if you stress some ata-disks. In particular, if I copy a big (1 GB) file from ad0: 114473MB [232581/16/63] at ata0-master UDMA100 to ad2: 57259MB [116336/16/63] at ata1-master UDMA100 or vice versa, X will completely unresponsive until the the copy is finnished. A same kernel with the 4BSD scheduler doesn't show this, so I don't think it's hardware related. Alex ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Status of SCHED_ULE?
On Sunday 28 September 2003 14:38, Matt wrote: > Morten Rodal wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 01:26:24PM +0100, Matt wrote: > >>Morten Rodal wrote: > >>>On Sat, Sep 27, 2003 at 11:31:25PM -0400, Jeff Roberson wrote: > On Sat, 27 Sep 2003, Morten Rodal wrote: > >It has improved quite a bit lately, and is now also working with KSE. > >However, the mouse will get sluggish whenever the computer is under > >bursts of load (i.e. a compile) > > I have not had this experience. Can you give me details of your > machine and the kind of load that causes slugishness? I'll correct it > as soon as I can identify it. > >>> > >>>The machine is an dual Pentium 2 300MHz, and I'm running gnome 2.4. > >>>I do also experience this with my computer at school, a single Pentium3 > >>>733MHz. > >>> > >>>The load isn't very complicated, usually just gnome 2.4 and mozilla > >>>firebird running. If I then do anything that requires lots of cpu, > >>>like a compile of a program, the interactivity drops fast. > >>> > >>>On the dual machine I have also experienced a *HUGE* increase in the > >>>time for "portupgrade -ar" to complete. I am not familiar with how > >>>portupgrade works, but it seems to spawn a few make's and sort's, but > >>>I am not sure why it is currently using 3 hours instead of 10 minutes > >>>to complete! (This was tested when there was no packages to upgrade, > >>>which shouldn't take long) > >>> > >>>Both machines (this dual and the one at school) are running with a > >>>libmap.conf in order to use libkse, is this perhaps affecting the > >>>performance of ULE? > >>> > >>>I am not sure how useful this is to you, but if you have any other > >>>pointers as to what I should look at just ask. > >> > >>Are you running 5.1-release or 5.1-current? > >> > >>I ask because I have used ULE on two different kernels so far on this > >>box. One was 5.1-release running gnome2, mozilla, xmms. On this the > >>mouse stutters really badly whenever anything is being compiled. > >> > >>However on the 5.1-current kernel this behavior no longer happens and > >>the mouse is fine. > >> > >>I suspect ULE has had a few enhancements between the release and now. > > > > I am running 5.1-current > > > > Dual machine: > > FreeBSD slurp.rodal.no 5.1-CURRENT FreeBSD 5.1-CURRENT #3: Thu Sep 25 > > 04:03:23 CEST 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/slurp > > i386 > > > > School computer: > > FreeBSD hauk10.idi.ntnu.no 5.1-CURRENT FreeBSD 5.1-CURRENT #2: Fri Sep 26 > > 09:12:55 CEST 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/hauk10 > > i386 > > Ahh I tell you the other difference. I had a USB mouse when I tried ULE > with 5.1-release and it stuttered. It's just a ps2 one on the current > kernel where it's not stuttering. > > Matt. I have a PS/2 mouse, I run -CURRENT from 2 days ago, and I experience the stuttering too. It happens when compiling stuff, when loading complicated pages in Mozilla Firebird, and when logging out of GNOME 2.4 (the 'background fade' animation brings my Athlon XP 2000+ to its knees when I use SCHED_ULE). Arjan ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Status of SCHED_ULE?
Morten Rodal wrote: On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 01:26:24PM +0100, Matt wrote: Morten Rodal wrote: On Sat, Sep 27, 2003 at 11:31:25PM -0400, Jeff Roberson wrote: On Sat, 27 Sep 2003, Morten Rodal wrote: It has improved quite a bit lately, and is now also working with KSE. However, the mouse will get sluggish whenever the computer is under bursts of load (i.e. a compile) I have not had this experience. Can you give me details of your machine and the kind of load that causes slugishness? I'll correct it as soon as I can identify it. The machine is an dual Pentium 2 300MHz, and I'm running gnome 2.4. I do also experience this with my computer at school, a single Pentium3 733MHz. The load isn't very complicated, usually just gnome 2.4 and mozilla firebird running. If I then do anything that requires lots of cpu, like a compile of a program, the interactivity drops fast. On the dual machine I have also experienced a *HUGE* increase in the time for "portupgrade -ar" to complete. I am not familiar with how portupgrade works, but it seems to spawn a few make's and sort's, but I am not sure why it is currently using 3 hours instead of 10 minutes to complete! (This was tested when there was no packages to upgrade, which shouldn't take long) Both machines (this dual and the one at school) are running with a libmap.conf in order to use libkse, is this perhaps affecting the performance of ULE? I am not sure how useful this is to you, but if you have any other pointers as to what I should look at just ask. Are you running 5.1-release or 5.1-current? I ask because I have used ULE on two different kernels so far on this box. One was 5.1-release running gnome2, mozilla, xmms. On this the mouse stutters really badly whenever anything is being compiled. However on the 5.1-current kernel this behavior no longer happens and the mouse is fine. I suspect ULE has had a few enhancements between the release and now. I am running 5.1-current Dual machine: FreeBSD slurp.rodal.no 5.1-CURRENT FreeBSD 5.1-CURRENT #3: Thu Sep 25 04:03:23 CEST 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/slurp i386 School computer: FreeBSD hauk10.idi.ntnu.no 5.1-CURRENT FreeBSD 5.1-CURRENT #2: Fri Sep 26 09:12:55 CEST 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/hauk10 i386 Ahh I tell you the other difference. I had a USB mouse when I tried ULE with 5.1-release and it stuttered. It's just a ps2 one on the current kernel where it's not stuttering. Matt. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Status of SCHED_ULE?
On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 01:26:24PM +0100, Matt wrote: > Morten Rodal wrote: > >On Sat, Sep 27, 2003 at 11:31:25PM -0400, Jeff Roberson wrote: > > > >>On Sat, 27 Sep 2003, Morten Rodal wrote: > >> > >>>It has improved quite a bit lately, and is now also working with KSE. > >>>However, the mouse will get sluggish whenever the computer is under > >>>bursts of load (i.e. a compile) > >>> > >> > >>I have not had this experience. Can you give me details of your machine > >>and the kind of load that causes slugishness? I'll correct it as soon as > >>I can identify it. > >> > > > > > >The machine is an dual Pentium 2 300MHz, and I'm running gnome 2.4. > >I do also experience this with my computer at school, a single Pentium3 > >733MHz. > > > >The load isn't very complicated, usually just gnome 2.4 and mozilla > >firebird running. If I then do anything that requires lots of cpu, > >like a compile of a program, the interactivity drops fast. > > > >On the dual machine I have also experienced a *HUGE* increase in the > >time for "portupgrade -ar" to complete. I am not familiar with how > >portupgrade works, but it seems to spawn a few make's and sort's, but > >I am not sure why it is currently using 3 hours instead of 10 minutes > >to complete! (This was tested when there was no packages to upgrade, > >which shouldn't take long) > > > >Both machines (this dual and the one at school) are running with a > >libmap.conf in order to use libkse, is this perhaps affecting the > >performance of ULE? > > > >I am not sure how useful this is to you, but if you have any other > >pointers as to what I should look at just ask. > > > > Are you running 5.1-release or 5.1-current? > > I ask because I have used ULE on two different kernels so far on this > box. One was 5.1-release running gnome2, mozilla, xmms. On this the > mouse stutters really badly whenever anything is being compiled. > > However on the 5.1-current kernel this behavior no longer happens and > the mouse is fine. > > I suspect ULE has had a few enhancements between the release and now. > I am running 5.1-current Dual machine: FreeBSD slurp.rodal.no 5.1-CURRENT FreeBSD 5.1-CURRENT #3: Thu Sep 25 04:03:23 CEST 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/slurp i386 School computer: FreeBSD hauk10.idi.ntnu.no 5.1-CURRENT FreeBSD 5.1-CURRENT #2: Fri Sep 26 09:12:55 CEST 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/hauk10 i386 -- Morten Rodal ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Status of SCHED_ULE?
Morten Rodal wrote: On Sat, Sep 27, 2003 at 11:31:25PM -0400, Jeff Roberson wrote: On Sat, 27 Sep 2003, Morten Rodal wrote: It has improved quite a bit lately, and is now also working with KSE. However, the mouse will get sluggish whenever the computer is under bursts of load (i.e. a compile) I have not had this experience. Can you give me details of your machine and the kind of load that causes slugishness? I'll correct it as soon as I can identify it. The machine is an dual Pentium 2 300MHz, and I'm running gnome 2.4. I do also experience this with my computer at school, a single Pentium3 733MHz. The load isn't very complicated, usually just gnome 2.4 and mozilla firebird running. If I then do anything that requires lots of cpu, like a compile of a program, the interactivity drops fast. On the dual machine I have also experienced a *HUGE* increase in the time for "portupgrade -ar" to complete. I am not familiar with how portupgrade works, but it seems to spawn a few make's and sort's, but I am not sure why it is currently using 3 hours instead of 10 minutes to complete! (This was tested when there was no packages to upgrade, which shouldn't take long) Both machines (this dual and the one at school) are running with a libmap.conf in order to use libkse, is this perhaps affecting the performance of ULE? I am not sure how useful this is to you, but if you have any other pointers as to what I should look at just ask. Are you running 5.1-release or 5.1-current? I ask because I have used ULE on two different kernels so far on this box. One was 5.1-release running gnome2, mozilla, xmms. On this the mouse stutters really badly whenever anything is being compiled. However on the 5.1-current kernel this behavior no longer happens and the mouse is fine. I suspect ULE has had a few enhancements between the release and now. Matt. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Status of SCHED_ULE?
On Sat, Sep 27, 2003 at 11:31:25PM -0400, Jeff Roberson wrote: > On Sat, 27 Sep 2003, Morten Rodal wrote: > > It has improved quite a bit lately, and is now also working with KSE. > > However, the mouse will get sluggish whenever the computer is under > > bursts of load (i.e. a compile) > > > > I have not had this experience. Can you give me details of your machine > and the kind of load that causes slugishness? I'll correct it as soon as > I can identify it. > The machine is an dual Pentium 2 300MHz, and I'm running gnome 2.4. I do also experience this with my computer at school, a single Pentium3 733MHz. The load isn't very complicated, usually just gnome 2.4 and mozilla firebird running. If I then do anything that requires lots of cpu, like a compile of a program, the interactivity drops fast. On the dual machine I have also experienced a *HUGE* increase in the time for "portupgrade -ar" to complete. I am not familiar with how portupgrade works, but it seems to spawn a few make's and sort's, but I am not sure why it is currently using 3 hours instead of 10 minutes to complete! (This was tested when there was no packages to upgrade, which shouldn't take long) Both machines (this dual and the one at school) are running with a libmap.conf in order to use libkse, is this perhaps affecting the performance of ULE? I am not sure how useful this is to you, but if you have any other pointers as to what I should look at just ask. -- Morten Rodal ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Status of SCHED_ULE?
On Sat, 27 Sep 2003, Morten Rodal wrote: > On Sat, Sep 27, 2003 at 06:47:54PM +0200, Roderick van Domburg wrote: > > Hello everyone, > > > > I was wondering about the status of the ULE scheduler. Is it very > > experimental still or is it reasonably suitable for everyday (i.e. > > non-mission-critical) use? > > > > It has improved quite a bit lately, and is now also working with KSE. > However, the mouse will get sluggish whenever the computer is under > bursts of load (i.e. a compile) > > -- > Morten Rodal > I have not had this experience. Can you give me details of your machine and the kind of load that causes slugishness? I'll correct it as soon as I can identify it. Thanks, Jeff ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Status of SCHED_ULE?
On Sat, Sep 27, 2003 at 06:47:54PM +0200, Roderick van Domburg wrote: > Hello everyone, > > I was wondering about the status of the ULE scheduler. Is it very > experimental still or is it reasonably suitable for everyday (i.e. > non-mission-critical) use? > It has improved quite a bit lately, and is now also working with KSE. However, the mouse will get sluggish whenever the computer is under bursts of load (i.e. a compile) -- Morten Rodal ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Status of SCHED_ULE?
Hello everyone, I was wondering about the status of the ULE scheduler. Is it very experimental still or is it reasonably suitable for everyday (i.e. non-mission-critical) use? Regards, Roderick ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
