On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 04:29:14PM -0800, Doug Barton 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.
The issues that I've seen with ULE on the desktop seem to be caused by X taking up a steady amount of CPU, and being demoted from being an "interactive" process. X then becomes the bottleneck for other processes that would otherwise be "interactive". Try 'renice -20 <pid_of_X>' and see if that makes your problems go away. Marcus _______________________________________________ freebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-performance-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
