From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Aug 11 16:20:28 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
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 6B2DA16A4CE; Wed, 11 Aug 2004 16:20:28 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from mail.imp.ch (ns1.imp.ch [157.161.1.2])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 12FDD43D48; Wed, 11 Aug 2004 16:20:27 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from mb@imp.ch)
Received: from cvs.imp.ch (cvs.imp.ch [157.161.4.9])
	by mail.imp.ch (8.12.9p2/8.12.3) with ESMTP id i7BGKH1m093593;
	Wed, 11 Aug 2004 18:20:19 +0200 (CEST)
	(envelope-from Martin.Blapp@imp.ch)
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 18:20:17 +0200 (CEST)
From: Martin Blapp <mb@imp.ch>
To: Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1040811105851.17560E-100000@fledge.watson.org>
Message-ID: <20040811181850.W31181@cvs.imp.ch>
References: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1040811105851.17560E-100000@fledge.watson.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Spam-Checksum: f9db2e54ef334b16bff3d247145225ac
X-Virus-Status: No, scantime="0.0019 seconds"
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.9 required=4 scantime="4.1272 seconds"
	tests=BAYES_00
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.44
cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: SCHEDULE and high load situations
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 16:20:28 -0000


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