В Tue, 13 Dec 2011 23:02:15 +0000 Marcus Reid <mar...@blazingdot.com> пишет:
> 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. Why, then X is not a bottleneck when using 4BSD? > Marcus _______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
