From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Sun Dec  7 05:30:20 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B3BA16A4CE
	for <current@freebsd.org>; Sun,  7 Dec 2003 05:30:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.chesapeake.net (chesapeake.net [208.142.252.6])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB5A843FA3
	for <current@freebsd.org>; Sun,  7 Dec 2003 05:30:18 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from jroberson@chesapeake.net)
Received: from localhost (jroberson@localhost)
	by mail.chesapeake.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hB7DUDM96713
	for <current@freebsd.org>; Sun, 7 Dec 2003 08:30:13 -0500 (EST)
	(envelope-from jroberson@chesapeake.net)
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 08:30:13 -0500 (EST)
From: Jeff Roberson <jroberson@chesapeake.net>
To: current@freebsd.org
Message-ID: <20031207082612.D4201-100000@mail.chesapeake.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Subject: ULE and current.
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
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: Sun, 07 Dec 2003 13:30:20 -0000

Now that 5.2 has been branched I will soon be making ULE the default
scheduler in GENERIC.  I'm hoping that before I throw the switch I'll get
more feedback from current users.  The only big change I have in the
pipeline for ULE is improved HTT support.  This has all been coded and
tested locally.  I'm going to commit this after things settle down on HEAD
a little more.

The plan is to leave ULE as the default until we get to 5.3 at which point
we will decide whether or not it is production quality.  The most
untest workload that I know of is on massive multiuser systems with lots
of interactive tasks.  If anyone has such a system, I would love to hear
of feedback while running ULE.  For anyone else, if your workload is
either improved or hindered, I'd appreciate a mail with the a description
of your workload, your hardware, behavior with ULE, and behavior with
4BSD.

Thanks,
Jeff