Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2006 19:01:20 +0100 From: Ceri Davies <ceri@submonkey.net> To: Maxim Konovalov <maxim@macomnet.ru> Cc: maho@freebsd.org, freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org, freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org Subject: Re: kern/85820: 1.5 times slower performance with SCHED_ULE than SCHED_4BSD Message-ID: <20061008180120.GX21333@submonkey.net> In-Reply-To: <20061008215308.W89071@mp2.macomnet.net> References: <200610081720.k98HKkQx058984@freefall.freebsd.org> <20061008215308.W89071@mp2.macomnet.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--7d9k4kQHj3EPdFyS
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sun, Oct 08, 2006 at 09:54:53PM +0400, Maxim Konovalov wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Oct 2006, 17:20-0000, Ceri Davies wrote:
>=20
> > Synopsis: 1.5 times slower performance with SCHED_ULE than SCHED_4BSD
> >
> > State-Changed-From-To: open->closed
> > State-Changed-By: ceri
> > State-Changed-When: Sun Oct 8 17:19:36 UTC 2006
> > State-Changed-Why:
> > ULE is no longer the default scheduler, and no longer has a maintainer.
> > This is an interesting test case though.
>=20
> I think better mark ULE bugs as suspended. I have plans to take them
> over.
I don't intend to sweep them all. I just didn't see a problem statement
in this PR, and figured that it was due to the fact that ULE was default
at the time the PR was raised.
Feel free to reopen it if you disagree.
Ceri
--=20
That must be wonderful! I don't understand it at all.
-- Moliere
--7d9k4kQHj3EPdFyS
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (FreeBSD)
iD8DBQFFKTzwocfcwTS3JF8RAn8JAJ0Y06NqI0yDOr/YFLSsAO//ldtSigCcCvw6
9WwNv8cjuH4CC7y1aTWo1X4=
=TjpD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--7d9k4kQHj3EPdFyS--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20061008180120.GX21333>