On 2012/11/05 17:13, Andriy Gapon wrote:
on 05/11/2012 04:41 David Xu said the following:
Another problem I remembered is that a thread on runqueue may be starved
because ULE treats a sleeping thread and a thread waiting on runqueue
differently. If a thread has slept for a while, after it is wok
on 05/11/2012 04:41 David Xu said the following:
> Another problem I remembered is that a thread on runqueue may be starved
> because ULE treats a sleeping thread and a thread waiting on runqueue
> differently. If a thread has slept for a while, after it is woken up,
> its priority is boosted, but
On 2012/11/03 02:26, Jeff Roberson wrote:
I have a small patch to the ULE scheduler that makes a fairly large
change to the way timeshare threads are handled.
http://people.freebsd.org/~jeff/schedslice.diff
Previously ULE used a fixed slice size for all timeshare threads. Now
it scales the sli
On Fri, 2 Nov 2012, Eitan Adler wrote:
On 2 November 2012 14:26, Jeff Roberson wrote:
I have a small patch to the ULE scheduler that makes a fairly large change
to the way timeshare threads are handled.
http://people.freebsd.org/~jeff/schedslice.diff
Previously ULE used a fixed slice size
On 2 November 2012 14:26, Jeff Roberson wrote:
> I have a small patch to the ULE scheduler that makes a fairly large change
> to the way timeshare threads are handled.
>
> http://people.freebsd.org/~jeff/schedslice.diff
>
> Previously ULE used a fixed slice size for all timeshare threads. Now it
I have a small patch to the ULE scheduler that makes a fairly large change
to the way timeshare threads are handled.
http://people.freebsd.org/~jeff/schedslice.diff
Previously ULE used a fixed slice size for all timeshare threads. Now it
scales the slice size down based on load. This should
