From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Dec 19 17:46:05 2011
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C96B106564A
	for <freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org>; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 17:46:05 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from fidaj@ukr.net)
Received: from fsm1.ukr.net (fsm1.ukr.net [195.214.192.120])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A2AA8FC13
	for <freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org>; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 17:46:04 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ukr.net;
	s=fsm; 
	h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Mime-Version:References:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date;
	bh=W+3HolAV4FdXwliTYx7lZerTTkWGdt9rZqjp/+MFX/Y=; 
	b=dQyAOm4/XeU8Ap4UdotYsoI2lR8J56CRbU/xkvoXq65Ca9Pgzxan6WS4HYmzbZm8nd1lO6Muyq9IVtqrSFo5iyaJNZYf5Na6rMihHMgsZwP/a02OaO/KIiC0stITW4ieqOn6daZsPvFcJOeB/eAeUuTTACoFV+MXCYtZiqV35bs=;
Received: from [178.137.138.140] (helo=nonamehost.)
	by fsm1.ukr.net with esmtpsa ID 1RchHm-0000Vi-H7
	; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 19:46:02 +0200
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 19:46:01 +0200
From: Ivan Klymenko <fidaj@ukr.net>
To: Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org>
Message-ID: <20111219194601.6d0285c7@nonamehost.>
In-Reply-To: <4EED05EC.8050103@FreeBSD.org>
References: <4EE1EAFE.3070408@m5p.com>
	<CAJ-FndDniGH8QoT=kUxOQ+zdVhWF0Z0NKLU0PGS-Gt=BK6noWw@mail.gmail.com>
	<4EE2AE64.9060802@m5p.com> <4EE88343.2050302@m5p.com>
	<CAFHbX1+5PttyZuNnYot8emTn_AWkABdJCvnpo5rcRxVXj0ypJA@mail.gmail.com>
	<4EE933C6.4020209@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
	<CAPjTQNEJDE17TLH-mDrG_-_Qa9R5N3mSeXSYYWtqz_DFidzYQw@mail.gmail.com>
	<4EECD261.2080208@m5p.com> <4EED05EC.8050103@FreeBSD.org>
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.10 (GTK+ 2.24.6; amd64-portbld-freebsd10.0)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: George Mitchell <george+freebsd@m5p.com>, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org,
	Oliver Pinter <oliver.pntr@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: SCHED_ULE should not be the default
X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code <freebsd-stable.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>,
	<mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 17:46:05 -0000

=D0=92 Sat, 17 Dec 2011 23:13:16 +0200
Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org> =D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=88=D0=B5=D1=82:

> on 17/12/2011 19:33 George Mitchell said the following:
> > Summing up for the record, in my original test:
> > 1. It doesn't matter whether X is running or not.
> > 2. The problem is not limited to two or fewer CPUs.  (It also
> > happens for me on a six-CPU system.)
> > 3. It doesn't require nCPU + 1 compute-bound processes, just nCPU.
> >=20
> > With nCPU compute-bound processes running, with SCHED_ULE, any other
> > process that is interactive (which to me means frequently waiting
> > for I/O) gets ABYSMAL performance -- over an order of magnitude
> > worse than it gets with SCHED_4BSD under the same conditions.
>=20
> I definitely do not see anything like this.
> Specifically:
> - with X
> - with 2 CPUs
> - with nCPU and/or nCPU + 1 compute-bound processes
> - with SCHED_ULE obviously :-)
> I do not get "abysmal" performance for I/O active tasks.
>=20
> Perhaps there is something specific that you would want me to run and
> measure.
>=20

Well, share your experiences - what to do, what would the others were
fine with SCHED_ULE. ;)