Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 21:58:38 +0200 From: Ivan Voras <ivoras@fer.hr> To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: On schedulers Message-ID: <f8o49l$sd1$1@sea.gmane.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] Hi, I've just stumbled on the LKML (via Slashdot) discussion on schedulers, nicely compiled here: http://kerneltrap.org/node/14023 . I don't think 3D performance is of concern for FreeBSD, but I'm wondering how would ULE and the latest incarnation of 4BSD fare in that discussion? Specifically, I'm interested in this result in Linux: 2.6.22-ck1 2.6.22-cfs-v19 ------------------------ ------------------------ quake + 0 loops | 41 fps quake + 0 loops | 41 fps quake + 1 loop | 3 fps quake + 1 loop | 41 fps quake + 2 loops | 2 fps quake + 2 loops | 32 fps quake + 3 loops | 1 fps quake + 3 loops | 24 fps quake + 4 loops | 0 fps quake + 4 loops | 20 fps quake + 5 loops | 0 fps quake + 5 loops | 16 fps (for the impatient: the benchmark is of running quake with several "idle loop" processes, presumably on a single CPU machine. On the left is the SD (staircase deadline) and on the right is the CF (completely fair) scheduler). How would this behave on FreeBSD? Is there a paper on how ULE should behave / is modeled? [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGr5R0ldnAQVacBcgRAjcGAJ9EPkePgt5V8uqk7SHdBB+eLlHMJACgyVSA Q0QzXcf0gD8mViCyr0kTckw= =zoYR -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?f8o49l$sd1$1>