From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Oct 17 02:46:37 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE7A816A4BF for ; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 02:46:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.chesapeake.net (chesapeake.net [208.142.252.6]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9F094400D for ; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 02:46:33 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jroberson@chesapeake.net) Received: from localhost (jroberson@localhost) by mail.chesapeake.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h9H9kTP88509; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 05:46:29 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jroberson@chesapeake.net) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 05:46:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Jeff Roberson To: Sean Chittenden In-Reply-To: <20031017092434.GA45975@perrin.nxad.com> Message-ID: <20031017054543.E30029-100000@mail.chesapeake.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: More ULE bugs fixed. X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 09:46:37 -0000 On Fri, 17 Oct 2003, Sean Chittenden wrote: > > I think you cvsup'd at a bad time. I fixed a bug that would have > > caused the system to lock up in this case late last night. On my > > system it freezes for a few seconds and then returns. I can stop > > that by turning down the interactivity threshold. > > Hrm, I must concur that while ULE seems a tad snappier on the > responsiveness end, it seems to be lacking in terms of real world > performance compared to 4BSD. Thanks for the stats. Is this on SMP or UP? > > Fresh CVSup (~midnight 2003-10-17) and build with a benchmark from > before and after. I was "benchmarking" a chump calc program using > bison vs. lemon earlier today under 4BSD > (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sqlite/message/5506) and figured I'd > throw my hat in on the subject with some relative numbers. System > time is down for ULE, but user and real are up. > > > Under ULE: > > Running a dry run with bison calc...done. > Running 1st run with bison calc... 52.11 real 45.63 user 0.56 sys > Running 2nd run with bison calc... 52.16 real 45.52 user 0.69 sys > Running 3rd run with bison calc... 51.80 real 45.32 user 0.87 sys > > Running a dry run with lemon calc...done. > Running 1st run with lemon calc... 129.69 real 117.91 user 1.10 sys > Running 2nd run with lemon calc... 130.26 real 117.88 user 1.13 sys > Running 3rd run with lemon calc... 130.76 real 117.90 user 1.10 sys > > Time spent in user mode (CPU seconds) : 654.049s > Time spent in kernel mode (CPU seconds) : 7.047s > Total time : 12:19.06s > CPU utilization (percentage) : 89.4% > Times the process was swapped : 0 > Times of major page faults : 34 > Times of minor page faults : 2361 > > > And under 4BSD: > > Running a dry run with bison calc...done. > Running 1st run with bison calc... 44.22 real 37.94 user 0.85 sys > Running 2nd run with bison calc... 46.21 real 37.98 user 0.85 sys > Running 3rd run with bison calc... 45.32 real 38.13 user 0.67 sys > > Running a dry run with lemon calc...done. > Running 1st run with lemon calc... 116.53 real 100.10 user 1.13 sys > Running 2nd run with lemon calc... 112.61 real 100.35 user 0.86 sys > Running 3rd run with lemon calc... 114.16 real 100.19 user 1.04 sys > > Time spent in user mode (CPU seconds) : 553.392s > Time spent in kernel mode (CPU seconds) : 6.978s > Total time : 10:40.80s > CPU utilization (percentage) : 87.4% > Times the process was swapped : 223 > Times of major page faults : 50 > Times of minor page faults : 2750 > > > Just a heads up, it does indeed look as thought hings have gone > backwards in terms of performance. -sc > > -- > Sean Chittenden >