From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Oct 15 19:57:58 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A1C916A418 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2007 19:57:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rdivacky@vlk.vlakno.cz) Received: from vlakno.cz (vlk.vlakno.cz [62.168.28.247]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B91113C474 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2007 19:57:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rdivacky@vlk.vlakno.cz) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by vlakno.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F7506691D6; Mon, 15 Oct 2007 21:57:55 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at vlakno.cz Received: from vlakno.cz ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (vlk.vlakno.cz [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id j6apWuSmhtbk; Mon, 15 Oct 2007 21:57:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: from vlk.vlakno.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by vlakno.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id B18E666911B; Mon, 15 Oct 2007 21:57:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: (from rdivacky@localhost) by vlk.vlakno.cz (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id l9FJvrYC098294; Mon, 15 Oct 2007 21:57:53 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from rdivacky) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 21:57:53 +0200 From: Roman Divacky To: Ken Smith Message-ID: <20071015195753.GA98066@freebsd.org> References: <1192464248.95331.22.camel@opus.cse.buffalo.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1192464248.95331.22.camel@opus.cse.buffalo.edu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HEADS-UP: ULE scheduler coming to 8.0-CURRENT soon... X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 19:57:58 -0000 On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 12:04:08PM -0400, Ken Smith wrote: > > I think it's fairly common knowledge by now but... The ULE scheduler is > "back" and has been doing VERY nicely. We actually had an internal > discussion about making it the default for 7.0. In the end it was > decided that ULE "just barely missed the bus". Its performance makes > giving it a try once 7.0 comes out definitely worthwhile but it was just > barely "too new" for us to be truly comfortable with changing it to be > the default. We'd like it to have the exposure of one release cycle > (7.0-REL) before it becomes the default. For now we're planning to make > it the default for 7.1-REL. will there be an official attitude (faq entry etc.) on that "although we think that ULE is ready and recomended for XYZ we stick with 4BSD for 7.0R because ABC". I think such a thing could help marketing 7.0R when it comes out as people who might benchmark it (with GENERIC kernel) will know that switching to ULE is the way to go but we want to be 100% sure before making it default. I think it would be beneficial. roman