Re: TTY task group scheduling

On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 1:10 PM, Oliver Pinter <oliver.pntr_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/11/16/392
>
> On 11/18/10, O. Hartmann <ohartman_at_zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
>> On 11/18/10 02:30, grarpamp wrote:
>>> Just documenting regarding interactive performance things.
>>> This one's from Linux.
>>>
>>> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=linux_2637_video&num=1
>>
>> Well,
>> it would be nice to have those improvements in FreeBSD, but I doubt this
>> will make it in due time to FreeBSD's kernel.

And my one line fix:

renice 10 `pidof firefox-bin`

Instantly my system is snappier (and in fact my system got really
laggy after applying the preempt sysctl that everyone recommended
before)... Performance issue with firefox maybe :P? I don't see the
point of adding an additional layer to complicate the system (and
essentially slow it down) if all you're trying to do is better
describe the nice'ing problem, unless this logic is what you want to
do strictly for desktop users in PCBSD, etc who may not have the
technical wherewithal to accomplish this task.

Besides, the Linux kernel has different compile time profiles for
different workloads, so maybe it just works better for them because
they already have a means for describing that functionality, whereas
FreeBSD is more generic.

It would be nice to describe this in a document though so people could
also decide how to tune the system for themselves and not deal with a
patch like what's noted above by the penguin crowd because it will
invariably fail under some workloads or conditions (I have yet to see
a one-size-fits-all solution in this area).

<handwaving>
SCHED_ULE improvements though should be looked into if possible,
because there are some potential items that could be done to cluster
processes together better, maybe.
</handwaving>

Thanks,
-Garrett