Re: ULE scheduling oddity

On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 09:12:45AM -0700, Barney Cordoba wrote:
> 
> > Actually, 10 copies of the little app are the only things
> > running except
> > top(1) and few sleeping system services (e.g., nfsd and
> > sshd).  Apparently,
> > you missed the "41 processes:  11 running, 30
> > sleeping" line above.
> > 
> 
> Your apparent argument that somehow every cpu cycle can be
> sliced equally and automagically is as silly

I do not expect a single cpu cycle to be split evenly 
between the running processes.  I do however expect that
8e12 cpu cycles to be split in a better distribution.

> as the expectation that a first generation scheduler will
> exhibit 100% efficiency across 8 cpus.

ULE in -current is no longer 1st generation.  I tested the
original ULE when jeffr committed and reported a few panics
and provided some of the first feedback of interactivity
problems.

Perhaps, I should have sent my original email directly to
jeffr instead of the freebsd-current list where others
might find the observation of interest.  If one expects to
see future improvements in ULE, then providing feedback 
is crucial.  Apparently, you have a different opinion.

-- 
Steve