From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Nov 2 19:00:48 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C24216A47C for ; Fri, 2 Nov 2007 19:00:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jroberson@chesapeake.net) Received: from webaccess-cl.virtdom.com (webaccess-cl.virtdom.com [216.240.101.25]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 332E713C478 for ; Fri, 2 Nov 2007 19:00:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jroberson@chesapeake.net) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (cpe-24-94-75-93.hawaii.res.rr.com [24.94.75.93]) (authenticated bits=0) by webaccess-cl.virtdom.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id lA2INmpq003885 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-DSS-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 2 Nov 2007 14:23:50 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jroberson@chesapeake.net) Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 10:25:52 -0800 (PST) From: Jeff Roberson X-X-Sender: jroberson@10.0.0.1 To: Josh Carroll In-Reply-To: <8cb6106e0710251925s2db0117cvcb67321b08d7b2a1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20071102102331.G544@10.0.0.1> References: <8cb6106e0710230902x4edf2c8eu2d912d5de1f5d4a2@mail.gmail.com> <20071024111105.M598@10.0.0.1> <8cb6106e0710241229i12852d8cq436f4c955ac62c56@mail.gmail.com> <20071024133240.X598@10.0.0.1> <8cb6106e0710251925s2db0117cvcb67321b08d7b2a1@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ULE vs. 4BSD in RELENG_7 X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 19:00:48 -0000 On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, Josh Carroll wrote: >> I'm confident that we can improve things. It will probably not make the >> cut for 7.0 since it will be too disruptive. I'm sure it can be >> backported before 7.1 when ULE is likely to become the default. > > That sounds great! I figured it was something that would have to wait > until 7.0 released. I completely understand that. > >> I hope that we can continue to work together to verify any fixes I may >> come up with. > > Absolutely! Just let me know how I can help. If you need a guinea > pig...er...tester :) I'll be glad to help! > Could you try spot checking a couple of tests with kern.sched.slice set to half its present value? 4BSD on average will use half the slice that ULE will by default. > Another thing I noticed between ULE and 4BSD is my core temperatures > seem erratic on ULE. I use RRDtool with the new coretemp(4) feature > and noticed the temperatures are spiking a lot with ULE, and generally > slightly higher than when running a 4BSD kernel. I don't know if > that's significant or not. Just something I noticed when I modified my > RRD scripts to use coretemp. > > For a side-by-side comparison, see this page: > > http://pflog.net/~floyd/fbsd_sched.html This is interesting. I have had a couple of laptop users report success in using lower power saving modes with ULE. Are these core temp observations repeatable? Thanks, Jeff > > Thanks again for all your help! Please let me know if/when I can do > anything else to help out. > > Regards, > Josh > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >