From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Feb  8 12:39:02 2005
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE32716A4CE
	for <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>;
	Tue,  8 Feb 2005 12:39:02 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from ux11.ltcm.net (ux11.ltcm.net [64.215.98.6])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A0AB43D48
	for <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>;
	Tue,  8 Feb 2005 12:39:02 +0000 (GMT)	(envelope-from mipam@ibb.net)
Received: from ux11.ltcm.net (mipam@localhost.ltcm.net [IPv6:::1])
	by ux11.ltcm.net (8.12.9/8.12.9/UX11TT) with ESMTP id j18Cd095019480;
	Tue, 8 Feb 2005 13:39:00 +0100 (MET)
Received: from localhost (mipam@localhost)
	by ux11.ltcm.net (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) with ESMTP id j18CcwIk021319;
	Tue, 8 Feb 2005 13:38:59 +0100 (MET)
X-Authentication-Warning: ux11.ltcm.net: mipam owned process doing -bs
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 13:38:58 +0100 (MET)
From: Mipam <mipam@ibb.net>
X-X-Sender: mipam@ux11.ltcm.net
To: Michael Nottebrock <michaelnottebrock@gmx.net>
In-Reply-To: <200502081333.08964.michaelnottebrock@gmx.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSO.4.56.0502081336420.22612@ux11.ltcm.net>
References: <Pine.BSO.4.56.0502081306440.28295@ux11.ltcm.net>
 <200502081333.08964.michaelnottebrock@gmx.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: ULE status
X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code
	<freebsd-stable.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>,
	<mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>,
	<mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 12:39:03 -0000

On Tue, 8 Feb 2005, Michael Nottebrock wrote:

> On Tuesday, 8. February 2005 13:07, Mipam wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I saw several changes to sched_ule.c in the 5 stable branch.
> > Beneath is one of them:
> >
> > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-src/2005-February/039863.html
> >
> > Is the ULE scheduler still far from stable in RELENG_5 or not?
> 
> You can now compile a kernel with options SCHED_ULE again. How well it works 
> is for yourself to determine :-) (I've been using it on my UP machine here 
> since yesterday only).

Okay, so then the ULE sched is fairly stable then?
But it's still not the default scheduler? Is it safe to use right now 
under RELENG_5 or not? Oh yes, i have smp machines, two physical cpu's and 
one machine with a hyperthreading cpu and i do have preemption enabled in 
the kernel config. Would that be still safe to try?
 Bye,

Mipam.