From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Jul 17 18:29:25 2008
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2971A1065672
	for <current@freebsd.org>; Thu, 17 Jul 2008 18:29:25 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu)
Received: from troutmask.apl.washington.edu (troutmask.apl.washington.edu
	[128.208.78.105])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0E8B8FC1D
	for <current@freebsd.org>; Thu, 17 Jul 2008 18:29:24 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu)
Received: from troutmask.apl.washington.edu (localhost.apl.washington.edu
	[127.0.0.1])
	by troutmask.apl.washington.edu (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id
	m6HITOJe000850; Thu, 17 Jul 2008 11:29:24 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu)
Received: (from sgk@localhost)
	by troutmask.apl.washington.edu (8.14.2/8.14.2/Submit) id
	m6HITOSu000849; Thu, 17 Jul 2008 11:29:24 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from sgk)
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 11:29:24 -0700
From: Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu>
To: Barney Cordoba <barney_cordoba@yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20080717182924.GA417@troutmask.apl.washington.edu>
References: <20080716211317.GA92354@troutmask.apl.washington.edu>
	<452221.38826.qm@web63902.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <452221.38826.qm@web63902.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i
Cc: current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: ULE scheduling oddity
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
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: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 18:29:25 -0000

On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 09:12:45AM -0700, Barney Cordoba wrote:
> 
> > Actually, 10 copies of the little app are the only things
> > running except
> > top(1) and few sleeping system services (e.g., nfsd and
> > sshd).  Apparently,
> > you missed the "41 processes:  11 running, 30
> > sleeping" line above.
> > 
> 
> Your apparent argument that somehow every cpu cycle can be
> sliced equally and automagically is as silly

I do not expect a single cpu cycle to be split evenly 
between the running processes.  I do however expect that
8e12 cpu cycles to be split in a better distribution.

> as the expectation that a first generation scheduler will
> exhibit 100% efficiency across 8 cpus.

ULE in -current is no longer 1st generation.  I tested the
original ULE when jeffr committed and reported a few panics
and provided some of the first feedback of interactivity
problems.

Perhaps, I should have sent my original email directly to
jeffr instead of the freebsd-current list where others
might find the observation of interest.  If one expects to
see future improvements in ULE, then providing feedback 
is crucial.  Apparently, you have a different opinion.

-- 
Steve