Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 19:11:10 -0500 From: Craig Rodrigues <rodrigc@crodrigues.org> To: Brad Knowles <brad.knowles@skynet.be> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: I like SCHED_4BSD Message-ID: <20040312001110.GA17148@crodrigues.org> In-Reply-To: <p0600207abc766e01632a@[10.0.1.4]> References: <XFMail.20040310213645.conrads@cox.net> <4050BBCB.50302@cinci.rr.com> <p0600207abc766e01632a@[10.0.1.4]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 08:29:30PM +0100, Brad Knowles wrote: > This is a transition period. 4BSD took a long time to get where > it is today, and it's going to take a while to get ULE to the point > where it is always better than 4BSD. But we have to make the > cut-over somewhere, and we have to get people using it more widely. > If we don't, then ULE will never get to the point where it could be > as good as 4BSD, much less better. Who is actively working on ULE, getting feedback from users, improving ULE, etc.? I asked some questions about the late tool used to evaluate ULE, and at first didn't get any responses, but was finally directed to look at: http://www.chesapeake.net/~jroberson/late.tgz I also mentioned on freebsd-arch that the following tool developed at University of Utah might be useful for evaluating scheduler performance on FreeBSD: http://www.cs.utah.edu/~regehr/hourglass/ I know a lot of researchers who are interested in operating system schedulers (especially for real-time systems), so leveraging off of their work couldn't hurt, and might lead to a better ULE implementation. -- Craig Rodrigues http://crodrigues.org rodrigc@crodrigues.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040312001110.GA17148>