From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Jan 30 14:01:36 2012
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG>
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 4212B1065672
	for <freebsd-performance@freebsd.org>;
	Mon, 30 Jan 2012 14:01:36 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from gofp-freebsd-performance@m.gmane.org)
Received: from plane.gmane.org (plane.gmane.org [80.91.229.3])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F250D8FC15
	for <freebsd-performance@freebsd.org>;
	Mon, 30 Jan 2012 14:01:35 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <gofp-freebsd-performance@m.gmane.org>)
	id 1Rrrnb-0006Cd-5R
	for freebsd-performance@freebsd.org; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 15:01:35 +0100
Received: from lara.cc.fer.hr ([161.53.72.113])
	by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian))
	id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
	for <freebsd-performance@freebsd.org>; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 15:01:35 +0100
Received: from ivoras by lara.cc.fer.hr with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian))
	id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
	for <freebsd-performance@freebsd.org>; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 15:01:35 +0100
X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/
To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org
From: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 15:01:25 +0100
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <jg67rm$nb7$1@dough.gmane.org>
References: <4F247975.9050208__14496.2912811481$1327796183$gmane$org@FreeBSD.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org
X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: lara.cc.fer.hr
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64;
	rv:9.0) Gecko/20120110 Thunderbird/9.0
In-Reply-To: <4F247975.9050208__14496.2912811481$1327796183$gmane$org@FreeBSD.org>
Subject: Re: ULE vs. 4BSD scheduler benchmarks
X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Performance/tuning <freebsd-performance.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance>,
	<mailto:freebsd-performance-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-performance>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-performance@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-performance-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance>,
	<mailto:freebsd-performance-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 14:01:36 -0000

On 28/01/2012 23:40, Florian Smeets wrote:

> The conclusion right now seems to be that ULE is faster for database
> workload,

I've done the same benchmarks with Bullet Cache last year and 4BSD is 
*ridiculously* inefficient and slow for this specific workload which 
involves a lot of inter-thread and inter-process communications. The 
results were somewhere in the ratio of 1:10 in favor of ULE.

>but for strongly CPU-bound workloads 4BSD can be a better
> choice. I can provide KTR traces and/or schedgraph output for cases
> where 4BSD is better than ULE.

Can you try manually bind processes to CPUs with the CPU-heavy 
benchmark? This could be a bit hard if you use the regular pbzip2 
because it spawns threads, but if you manually spawn 8 CPU-bound 
processes (with cpuset(1)) in parallel and measure that, it would be useful.