On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 09:41:07AM +0200, Vallo Kallaste wrote:
All interactive tasks are very responsive. My nice -5'd looping process
is getting 70% of the cpu and my compile is taking the rest. nice +20 may
not behave as well as in sched_4bsd right now. I'm going to work on that.
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 08:57:01AM -0800, Kris Kennaway
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As noted in Jeff's original mail, niced processes do not behave nicely
yet.
Yes, I'm sorry that slipped off my first reading. Otherwise, the new
scheduler is very useable for me. Thanks for pointing out, Kris.
--
On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 09:41:07AM +0200, Vallo Kallaste wrote:
Althought much better, KDE is still almost unusable, XFree and KDE
startup takes a lot more time and starting plain xterm under KDE
takes x3 time than usual. When I kill one of the seti
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 01:25:24AM -0500, Jeff Roberson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm using SCHED_ULE on my laptop now. My recent round of fixes seems to
have helped out. I'm getting good interactive performance. I'm doing the
following:
nice -5'd for (;;) {} process.
make -j4 buildworld
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 10:44:21PM +0200, Vallo Kallaste
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm using SCHED_ULE on my laptop now. My recent round of fixes seems to
have helped out. I'm getting good interactive performance. I'm doing the
following:
nice -5'd for (;;) {} process.
make -j4
My first impression of SCHED_ULE is slow. I only say this because the first thing I
fire up after starting X is Eterm with a transparant+shaded theme. Even with the old
scheduler this Eterm wasn't too snappy, but with SCHED_ULE it hangs X for about 1-2
seconds. I'm currently running a kernel
I'm using SCHED_ULE on my laptop now. My recent round of fixes seems to
have helped out. I'm getting good interactive performance. I'm doing the
following:
nice -5'd for (;;) {} process.
make -j4 buildworld
Mozilla, pine, irc, screen, vi, etc.
All interactive tasks are very responsive. My
