On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 10:40:48AM +0200, Ivan Klymenko wrote: > > On 12/12/2011 05:47, O. Hartmann wrote: > > > Do we have any proof at hand for such cases where SCHED_ULE performs > > > much better than SCHED_4BSD? > > > > I complained about poor interactive performance of ULE in a desktop > > environment for years. I had numerous people try to help, including > > Jeff, with various tunables, dtrace'ing, etc. The cause of the problem > > was never found. > > > > I switched to 4BSD, problem gone. > > > > This is on 2 separate systems with core 2 duos. > > > > > > hth, > > > > Doug > > > > If the algorithm ULE does not contain problems - it means the problem > has Core2Duo, or in a piece of code that uses the ULE scheduler. I observe ULE interactivity slowness even on single core machine (Pentium 4) in very visible places, like 'ps ax' output stucks in the middle by ~1 second. When I switch back to SHED_4BSD, all slowness is gone. -- http://ache.vniz.net/Received on Tue Dec 13 2011 - 08:00:56 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:21 UTC