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
> >
> > Th
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
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 eff
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 any
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 wor
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 h
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
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 anyth
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 wo
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 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 shoul
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 :-)
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
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 starte
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 degradation for buildworld.
I'd appreciate feedback from a
15 matches
Mail list logo
