Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 16:18:35 +0000 From: Bruce Cran <bruce@cran.org.uk> To: Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> Cc: "O. Hartmann" <ohartman@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de>, Current FreeBSD <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SCHED_ULE should not be the default Message-ID: <4EE6295B.3020308@cran.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <20111212155159.GB73597@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> References: <4EE1EAFE.3070408@m5p.com> <4EE22421.9060707@gmail.com> <4EE6060D.5060201@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de> <20111212155159.GB73597@troutmask.apl.washington.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 12/12/2011 15:51, Steve Kargl wrote: > This comes up every 9 months or so, and must be approaching FAQ > status. In a HPC environment, I recommend 4BSD. Depending on the > workload, ULE can cause a severe increase in turn around time when > doing already long computations. If you have an MPI application, > simply launching greater than ncpu+1 jobs can show the problem. PS: > search the list archives for "kargl and ULE". This isn't something that can be fixed by tuning ULE? For example for desktop applications kern.sched.preempt_thresh should be set to 224 from its default. I'm wondering if the installer should ask people what the typical use will be, and tune the scheduler appropriately. -- Bruce Cran
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4EE6295B.3020308>