Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 18:20:17 +0200 (CEST) From: Martin Blapp <mb@imp.ch> To: Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SCHEDULE and high load situations Message-ID: <20040811181850.W31181@cvs.imp.ch> In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1040811105851.17560E-100000@fledge.watson.org> References: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1040811105851.17560E-100000@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, > I've found that for throughput oriented workloads, 4BSD substantially > outperforms ULE, but I haven't tried it with Jeff's latest set of patches > (committed a day or two ago). You don't mention if your box is SMP, btw > -- I've noticed some load balancing problems with ULE previously, but > haven't checked if they were resolved. Anecdotal opinion seems generally > to be that interactivity is observably better with ULE than 4BSD, but that > 4BSD appears to do a better job under load. If the load doesn't grow over 2, I'd say the scheduler is broken. This is SMP btw. > SMP. Some of the wins on SMP have been from moving to adaptive mutexes by > default (most recently, for Giant on i386); others from improved fine > grain locking in VM and networking, and general optimization of > synchronization primitives, scheduling, wakeups/locking, etc. The tests I've done are with your adaptive giant option and Jeff's ULE patches. Martin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040811181850.W31181>