From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Oct 23 19:57:55 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 673EB16A41B for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2007 19:57:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from josh.carroll@gmail.com) Received: from py-out-1112.google.com (py-out-1112.google.com [64.233.166.180]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 230F913C4D1 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2007 19:57:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from josh.carroll@gmail.com) Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id u77so3521389pyb for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2007 12:57:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=LEP/LmJvrIiN3+FsYr0R+4xOdnIsbeQ2oeHgh11fY68=; b=jgdMaYR+gCT+jQrRhKYL3KsngREeK1PU5NSOR1WlXnd/rXLtKTvwGktVrIIYOuRKh/QUlMpxRt7BHaIx11l1Z047eaMvdwPWbyn4GlkaZ0yucXAUaKSYJbCVE612XP5JmTHzUyboi/IYkVY6uMzi9hT3WinsD3z85BFiuuyxDHc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=YOeWxO60vWRCMR/y8qeXucyUh3e+nVxub0fbibuqtgSUdW2kQtvE19b6xxIhqd1ScQpalRELp9MLs3AAYmLcfVZCmhMYlvQj3PvDhCJwGUyTpf8Hfpvovy00MLV3hOO8OI4KdH+pxSRO2wu/4XTCV78qae4goaEljW6qxff2PQA= Received: by 10.35.33.15 with SMTP id l15mr7989556pyj.1193169465108; Tue, 23 Oct 2007 12:57:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.35.117.12 with HTTP; Tue, 23 Oct 2007 12:57:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <8cb6106e0710231257k154e9c6ev4b4ba8c3692206fb@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 15:57:45 -0400 From: "Josh Carroll" To: "Kip Macy" In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <8cb6106e0710230902x4edf2c8eu2d912d5de1f5d4a2@mail.gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ULE vs. 4BSD in RELENG_7 X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: josh.carroll@gmail.com List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 19:57:55 -0000 > ULE is tuned towards providing cpu affinity compilation and evidently > encoding are workloads that do not benefit from affinity. Before we > conclude that it is slower, try building with -j5, -j6, j7. Here are the results of running ffmpeg with 4 through 8 threads on both schedulers: 4 threads 4bsd: 117.21 5 threads 4bsd: 95.75 6 threads 4bsd: 93.10 7 threads 4bsd: 92.19 8 threads 4bsd: 92.38 4 threads ule: 122.19 5 threads ule: 107.26 6 threads ule: 101.40 7 threads ule: 98.72 8 threads ule: 96.38 4 threads difference: 4.25 % 5 threads difference: 12.02 % 6 threads difference: 8.92 % 7 threads difference: 7.08 % 8 threads difference: 4.33 % I'm not sure why the performance differential is not consistent (probably something very technical a scheduler developer could explain) :) Do these results help at all? When running with 9 or more threads, ffmpeg spits out a lot of errors, so 8 was as high as I could go: Error while decoding stream #0.0 [h264 @ 0x264ae180]too many threads [h264 @ 0x264ae180]decode_slice_header error [h264 @ 0x264ae180]no frame! My next step is to run some transcodes with mencoder to see if it has similar performance between the two schedulers. When I have those results, I'll post them to this thread. Thanks for the attention, Josh