From owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Oct 8 19:05:19 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41F2116A40F for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2006 19:05:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ohartman@uni-mainz.de) Received: from mailgate02.zdv.uni-mainz.de (mailgate02.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE [134.93.178.132]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D37A43D5A for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2006 19:05:17 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from ohartman@uni-mainz.de) Received: from exfront01.zdv.uni-mainz.de ([134.93.176.49]) by mailgate02.zdv.uni-mainz.de with ESMTP; 08 Oct 2006 21:05:16 +0200 Received: from mail.uni-mainz.de ([134.93.176.49]) by exfront01.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sun, 8 Oct 2006 21:05:16 +0200 Received: from [192.168.1.128] ([85.178.18.39] RDNS failed) by mail.uni-mainz.de over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sun, 8 Oct 2006 21:05:15 +0200 Message-ID: <45294BE2.2010007@mail.uni-mainz.de> Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2006 21:05:06 +0200 From: "O. Hartmann" User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (X11/20060917) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ceri Davies , freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org References: <200610081720.k98HKkQx058984@freefall.freebsd.org> <45293AAD.9090205@mail.uni-mainz.de> <20061008175901.GW21333@submonkey.net> In-Reply-To: <20061008175901.GW21333@submonkey.net> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Oct 2006 19:05:15.0955 (UTC) FILETIME=[B079E030:01C6EB0C] Cc: Subject: Re: kern/85820: 1.5 times slower performance with SCHED_ULE than SCHED_4BSD X-BeenThere: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2006 19:05:19 -0000 Ceri Davies wrote: > On Sun, Oct 08, 2006 at 07:51:41PM +0200, O. Hartmann wrote: > >> Ceri Davies wrote: >> >>> 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. >>> >>> >>> Responsible-Changed-From-To: freebsd-amd64->freebsd-bugs >>> Responsible-Changed-By: ceri >>> Responsible-Changed-When: Sun Oct 8 17:19:36 UTC 2006 >>> Responsible-Changed-Why: >>> Scheduler problem. >>> >>> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=85820 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org mailing list >>> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-amd64 >>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-amd64-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >>> >>> >> Very interesting to read. And this is now the end of the newly >> introduced allround weapon for more scalability? >> > > There is some one working on SCHED_ULE, but they are not a committer and > they suggested that this PR could be closed. It contains an interesting > test case but no real problem as such, only that one scheduler is slower > that the other for certain loads. That is always going to be true. > > Ceri > Sorry for my smug comment. Today I was searching the web for scaleability benchmarks on the different flavors of BSD and Linux and I read very much about the great benefits of ULE, and it is really interesting to read about ULE what has been written in 2004 and January 2005. Well, today I exchanged SCHED_ULE in my kernel config back to SCHED_4BSD on my UP FreeBSD 6.2-PRE/AMD64 box and on normal desktop usage I experience a significant performance impact (Firefox/Thunderbird react both much smoother). Tomorrow I will change the same on my lab's i386 box (also UP) and see, whether some calculations also will run faster. Well, I'm not the benchmark crack anyhow and as I knew SCHED_ULE was the defualt for 6.1 and it was said that even UP systems also benefit from the improvements. At this point, I see that there is a great need in work to be done. Regards, Oliver