ULE and very bad responsiveness

[Arjan van Leeuwen]

On Thursday 13 November 2003 22:25, Jeff Roberson wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Harald Schmalzbauer wrote:
> > On Thursday 13 November 2003 07:17, Harald Schmalzbauer wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > from comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:
> > >
> > > Kris Kennaway wrote:
> > > > On 2003-11-13, Harald Schmalzbauer <news at schmalzbauer.de> wrote:
> > > >> Well, I don't have any measurements but in my case it's not
> > > >> neccessary at all. I built a UP kernel with ULE like Kris advised
> > > >> me.
> > > >
> > > > Are you running an up-to-date 5.1-CURRENT?  ULE was broken with these
> > > > characteristics until very recently.  If you're up-to-date and still
> > > > see these problems, you need to post to the current mailing list.
> > > >
> > > > Kris
> > >
> > > Yes, I am running current as of 13. Nov.
> > >
> > > Find attached my first problem description.
> >
> > This time I also attached my dmesg and kernel conf
>
> Try running seti with nice +20 rather than 15.  Do you experience bad
> interactivity without seti running?

On a related note, when will SCHED_ULE become the default? It looks like it's 
ready now (I just played Quake 3 while compiling a new X server :)). This 
should speed up the finding of any bugs in SCHED_ULE.

Best regards,

Arjan
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: signature
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/attachments/20031114/1b51cb4e/attachment.bin