From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 11 16:11:10 2004 Return-Path: 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 B7C6616A4CE for ; Thu, 11 Mar 2004 16:11:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from sccrmhc13.comcast.net (sccrmhc13.comcast.net [204.127.202.64]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 730C943D46 for ; Thu, 11 Mar 2004 16:11:10 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rodrigc@h00609772adf0.ne.client2.attbi.com) Received: from dibbler.crodrigues.org (h00609772adf0.ne.client2.attbi.com[66.31.45.197]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc13) with ESMTP id <2004031200110901600li085e>; Fri, 12 Mar 2004 00:11:09 +0000 Received: from dibbler.crodrigues.org (localhost.crodrigues.org [127.0.0.1]) i2C0BBZh017188; Thu, 11 Mar 2004 19:11:11 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from rodrigc@h00609772adf0.ne.client2.attbi.com) Received: (from rodrigc@localhost) by dibbler.crodrigues.org (8.12.11/8.12.10/Submit) id i2C0BADd017187; Thu, 11 Mar 2004 19:11:10 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from rodrigc) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 19:11:10 -0500 From: Craig Rodrigues To: Brad Knowles Message-ID: <20040312001110.GA17148@crodrigues.org> References: <4050BBCB.50302@cinci.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: I like SCHED_4BSD X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 00:11:10 -0000 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