Re: Scheduler weirdness

From: Taku YAMAMOTO <taku_at_tackymt.homeip.net>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 13:41:59 +0900
On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 17:59:52 -0500
"Larry Rosenman" <ler_at_lerctr.org> wrote:

> 
> Ok, running RELENG_8 from Friday (10/9/2009).
> 
> If I have 4 Folding-at-home processes running (they nice themselves) the
> system is slow as a dog.

Ah, I reminded a local patch regarding SCHED_ULE against niced threads.
Something like this:

--- sys/kern/sched_ule.c.orig	2009-04-29 12:26:30.000000000 +0900
+++ sys/kern/sched_ule.c	2009-04-30 08:13:30.951440396 +0900
_at__at_ -1406,7 +1406,7 _at__at_ sched_priority(struct thread *td)
 	 * score.  Negative nice values make it easier for a thread to be
 	 * considered interactive.
 	 */
-	score = imax(0, sched_interact_score(td) - td->td_proc->p_nice);
+	score = imax(0, sched_interact_score(td) + td->td_proc->p_nice);
 	if (score < sched_interact) {
 		pri = PRI_MIN_REALTIME;
 		pri += ((PRI_MAX_REALTIME - PRI_MIN_REALTIME) / sched_interact)

> 
> If I stop them, it's speedy.
> 
> This is running SCHED_ULE
> 
> is this expected?
> 
> What can I do to help?
> 
> These are Linux binaries.

-- 
-|-__   YAMAMOTO, Taku
 | __ <     <taku_at_tackymt.homeip.net>

      - A chicken is an egg's way of producing more eggs. -
Received on Mon Oct 12 2009 - 02:42:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:56 UTC