cvs commit: src/sys/kern sched_ule.c

[Jeff Roberson]

On Mon, 1 Oct 2007, Bruce Evans wrote:

> On Mon, 1 Oct 2007, Jeff Roberson wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 1 Oct 2007, Bruce Evans wrote:
>> 
>>> On Sun, 30 Sep 2007, Jeff Roberson wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Sat, 29 Sep 2007, Kevin Oberman wrote:
>>> 
>>>>> YMMV, but ULE seems to generally work better then 4BSD for interactive
>>>>> uniprocessor systems. The preferred scheduler for uniprocessor servers
>>>>> is less clear, but many test have shown ULE does better for those
>>>>> systems in the majority of cases.
>>>> 
>>>> I feel it's safe to say desktop behavior on UP is definitely superior.
>>> 
>>> This is unsafe to say.
>> 
>> Given that the overwhelming amount of feedback by qualified poeple, I think 
>> it's fair to say that ULE gives a more responsive system under load.
>
> This is not my experience.  Maybe I don't run enough interactive bloatware
> to have a large enough interactive load for the scheduler to make a
> difference.

Yes it's unfortunate but our users want to run multimedia applications, 
play games, and use graphical web browsers.  If we could just convince 
them to only use xterms, play 'fortune', and use lynx we could solve a lot 
of these issues with less effort.

Jeff

>
> Bruce
>