Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 17:09:29 -0400 From: Nick Evans <nevans@talkpoint.com> To: Jeff Roberson <jroberson@chesapeake.net> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ULE/SCHED_SMP diff for 7.0 Message-ID: <20070718170929.12305d71@pleiades.nextvenue.com> In-Reply-To: <20070716233030.D92541@10.0.0.1> References: <20070716233030.D92541@10.0.0.1>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 23:35:38 -0700 (PDT) Jeff Roberson <jroberson@chesapeake.net> wrote: > http://people.freebsd.org/~jeff/ule.diff > > This patch is scheduled for inclusion in 7.0. I would like anyone who > cares to run it to validate that it does not create any stability or > performance regression over the existing ULE. This patch replaces ULE > with SCHED_SMP, which will now no longer exist as a seperate fork of ULE. > > Briefly, this is still a very suitable scheduler for uniprocessor machines > while providing stronger affinity and other performance improvements for > multiprocessor machines. > > Even "works for me!" type responses are welcome so I know roughly how many > people have tested before I commit this close to release. > > Thanks! > Jeff > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" Works here on a quad-core E5310 on i386, except that when I run distributed.net I still sometimes see one full processor completely idle with 4 cruncher processes. This used to happen on on older quad processor Pentium 3 Xeon system when I was testing months ago. Changing kern.sched.steal_idle or kern.sched.balance makes no difference. Nick
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070718170929.12305d71>