From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Apr 15 08:54:24 2010
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D309C106566B;
	Thu, 15 Apr 2010 08:54:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from avg@freebsd.org)
Received: from citadel.icyb.net.ua (citadel.icyb.net.ua [212.40.38.140])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7F1F8FC14;
	Thu, 15 Apr 2010 08:54:23 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from porto.topspin.kiev.ua (porto-e.starpoint.kiev.ua
	[212.40.38.100])
	by citadel.icyb.net.ua (8.8.8p3/ICyb-2.3exp) with ESMTP id LAA23117;
	Thu, 15 Apr 2010 11:54:15 +0300 (EEST)
	(envelope-from avg@freebsd.org)
Received: from localhost.topspin.kiev.ua ([127.0.0.1])
	by porto.topspin.kiev.ua with esmtp (Exim 4.34 (FreeBSD))
	id 1O2Kpz-0005BV-KK; Thu, 15 Apr 2010 11:54:15 +0300
Message-ID: <4BC6D436.7060207@freebsd.org>
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 11:54:14 +0300
From: Andriy Gapon <avg@freebsd.org>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20100321)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Adam Vande More <amvandemore@gmail.com>
References: <h2yca3526251004122230l909bc93ey916d7fe0dd24fd33@mail.gmail.com>	
	<4BC402B7.5000400@modulus.org>	
	<v2gca3526251004122322i709c523ct4f93bcf75a778a8e@mail.gmail.com>	
	<20100414.082109.29593248145846106.chat95@mac.com>	
	<4BC5DEB4.1090208@freebsd.org>	
	<x2k6201873e1004140934z6f7518b9j72ffd9e1adc1ad49@mail.gmail.com>	
	<m2y6201873e1004140945n855c8800we9baced2e293f270@mail.gmail.com>	
	<4BC5F289.7020408@freebsd.org>
	<n2o6201873e1004141047t97d89cb0o2688fae1875eae08@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <n2o6201873e1004141047t97d89cb0o2688fae1875eae08@mail.gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: alc@freebsd.org, Maho NAKATA <chat95@mac.com>, alan.l.cox@gmail.com,
	freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, als@modulus.org
Subject: Re: How to reproduce: Re: Only 70% of theoretical peak performance
 on 	FreeBSD 8/amd64, Corei7 920
X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
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: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 08:54:25 -0000

on 14/04/2010 20:47 Adam Vande More said the following:
> I'm no expert Andriy, but it seems like if gotoblas
> implemented some of the FreeBSD optimizations then we'd be in the same
> ballpark.

This is a good point.
But on the other hand, it means that our scheduler doesn't do a perfect job
here.  BTW, I use ULE.
My observation is that when a number of CPU-intensive long running processes is
less than or equal to number of cores, then the processes tend to stay on the
same cores for a long time.
But if the number of the processes is greater, then they seem to jump from core
to core a lot.
But I am not sure what would be an optimal strategy for that case.  If we try to
keep some lucky processes on the same core, then cpu time might be shared
unfairly.  Shuffling cores provides more fairness, but can hurt total performance.

-- 
Andriy Gapon