Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 21:26:39 +1000 (EST) From: Bruce Evans <brde@optusnet.com.au> To: Jeff Roberson <jroberson@chesapeake.net> Cc: cvs-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, cvs-src@freebsd.org, Jeff Roberson <jeff@freebsd.org>, Garance A Drosehn <gad@freebsd.org>, Ben Kaduk <minimarmot@gmail.com>, Bruce Evans <brde@optusnet.com.au> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern sched_ule.c Message-ID: <20071001205923.U2657@besplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <20071001020835.B583@10.0.0.1> References: <20070930040318.094E345018@ptavv.es.net> <20070930153430.U583@10.0.0.1> <20071001172620.X1839@besplex.bde.org> <20071001020835.B583@10.0.0.1>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 1 Oct 2007, Jeff Roberson wrote: > On Mon, 1 Oct 2007, Bruce Evans wrote: > >> On Sun, 30 Sep 2007, Jeff Roberson wrote: >> >>> On Sat, 29 Sep 2007, Kevin Oberman wrote: >> >>>> YMMV, but ULE seems to generally work better then 4BSD for interactive >>>> uniprocessor systems. The preferred scheduler for uniprocessor servers >>>> is less clear, but many test have shown ULE does better for those >>>> systems in the majority of cases. >>> >>> I feel it's safe to say desktop behavior on UP is definitely superior. >> >> This is unsafe to say. > > Given that the overwhelming amount of feedback by qualified poeple, I think > it's fair to say that ULE gives a more responsive system under load. This is not my experience. Maybe I don't run enough interactive bloatware to have a large enough interactive load for the scheduler to make a difference. Bruce
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20071001205923.U2657>