On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 5:27 PM, Oliver Pinter <oliver.pntr_at_gmail.com> wrote: > My desktop running 7-STABLE with 100Hz and NOPREEMPT (it's a 4core SMP system), > I tested 8-STABLE, but that is not too responsive, the solution is: > 100Hz NOPREEMPT + kern.sched.preempt_thresh=224 > After this setting, the system is likely responsive as 7-STABLE. > > On 11/19/10, Garrett Cooper <gcooper_at_freebsd.org> wrote: >> 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> Ugh. Looks like this was the only machine that I setup recently where I didn't set kern.hz... Ok, will retry after building and installing a whole new world *queue lame Disney music here* and kernel. Thanks for the obvious reminder... -GarrettReceived on Sat Nov 20 2010 - 00:49:58 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:09 UTC