Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 18:44:58 -0400 From: "Ben Kaduk" <minimarmot@gmail.com> To: "Jeff Roberson" <jroberson@chesapeake.net> Cc: cvs-src@freebsd.org, Jeff Roberson <jeff@freebsd.org>, src-committers@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern sched_ule.c Message-ID: <47d0403c0709301544u1df182a7vcf30062b0b92c645@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20070930153430.U583@10.0.0.1> References: <20070930040318.094E345018@ptavv.es.net> <20070930153430.U583@10.0.0.1>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 9/30/07, Jeff Roberson <jroberson@chesapeake.net> wrote: > On Sat, 29 Sep 2007, Kevin Oberman wrote: > > >> Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 23:25:08 -0400 > >> From: "Ben Kaduk" <minimarmot@gmail.com> > >> Sender: owner-cvs-all@freebsd.org > >> > >> On 9/29/07, Garance A Drosehn <gad@freebsd.org> wrote: [snip] > >>> > >>> Does this mean that I should not switch to ULE on my single-CPU PowerPC > >>> mini-Mac? > >>> > >> > >> I was under the impression that BSD is preferred to ULE for single-processor > >> systems, irregardless of the processor architecture. > > > > YMMV, but ULE seems to generally work better then 4BSD for interactive > > uniprocessor systems. The preferred scheduler for uniprocessor servers > > is less clear, but many test have shown ULE does better for those > > systems in the majority of cases. > > I feel it's safe to say desktop behavior on UP is definitely superior. I > think there is no significant difference on UP between 4BSD and ULE except > perhaps in context switching microbenchmarks where ULE falls behind. > I'm glad to be corrected. Thanks for all the great work, Jeff! -Ben Kaduk
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?47d0403c0709301544u1df182a7vcf30062b0b92c645>