From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jul 17 08:37:46 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: current@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C09B916A400 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2007 08:37:46 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from youshi10@u.washington.edu) Received: from mxout5.cac.washington.edu (mxout5.cac.washington.edu [140.142.32.135]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B76313C4B9 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2007 08:37:46 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from youshi10@u.washington.edu) Received: from smtp.washington.edu (smtp.washington.edu [140.142.33.9] (may be forged)) by mxout5.cac.washington.edu (8.13.7+UW06.06/8.13.7+UW07.06) with ESMTP id l6H8bdZ8023358 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 17 Jul 2007 01:37:40 -0700 X-Auth-Received: from [192.168.10.45] (c-24-10-12-194.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [24.10.12.194]) (authenticated authid=youshi10) by smtp.washington.edu (8.13.7+UW06.06/8.13.7+UW07.03) with ESMTP id l6H8bdlc007041 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 17 Jul 2007 01:37:39 -0700 Message-ID: <469C7FD2.6080205@u.washington.edu> Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 01:37:38 -0700 From: Garrett Cooper User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.4 (Windows/20070604) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Johan Hendriks References: <20070716233030.D92541@10.0.0.1><57200BF94E69E54880C9BB1AF714BBCB011176@w2003s01.double-l.local> <57200BF94E69E54880C9BB1AF714BBCB011177@w2003s01.double-l.local> In-Reply-To: <57200BF94E69E54880C9BB1AF714BBCB011177@w2003s01.double-l.local> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-PMX-Version: 5.3.2.304607, Antispam-Engine: 2.5.1.298604, Antispam-Data: 2007.7.17.11733 X-Uwash-Spam: Gauge=IIIIIII, Probability=7%, Report='__CP_URI_IN_BODY 0, __CT 0, __CTE 0, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY 0, __MIME_VERSION 0, __SANE_MSGID 0, __USER_AGENT 0' Cc: Vlad GALU , current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ULE/SCHED_SMP diff for 7.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 08:37:46 -0000 Johan Hendriks wrote: > Thanks, > i did it from the dir /usr/src > > regards, > Johan Hendriks > > > > ________________________________ > > Van: Vlad GALU [mailto:dudu@dudu.ro] > Verzonden: di 17-7-2007 10:13 > Aan: Johan Hendriks > CC: current@freebsd.org > Onderwerp: Re: ULE/SCHED_SMP diff for 7.0 > > > > On 7/17/07, Johan Hendriks wrote: > >> Sorry for the lame question but how do i apply the patch ? >> >> > cd /usr/src/sys && patch < /path/to/ule.diff. > > >> regards >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> Van: owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org namens Jeff Roberson >> Verzonden: di 17-7-2007 8:35 >> Aan: current@freebsd.org >> Onderwerp: ULE/SCHED_SMP diff for 7.0 >> >> >> >> http://people.freebsd.org/~jeff/ule.diff >> >> This patch is scheduled for inclusion in 7.0. I would like anyone who >> cares to run it to validate that it does not create any stability or >> performance regression over the existing ULE. This patch replaces ULE >> with SCHED_SMP, which will now no longer exist as a seperate fork of ULE. >> >> Briefly, this is still a very suitable scheduler for uniprocessor machines >> while providing stronger affinity and other performance improvements for >> multiprocessor machines. >> >> Even "works for me!" type responses are welcome so I know roughly how many >> people have tested before I commit this close to release. >> >> Thanks! >> Jeff > > -- > If it's there, and you can see it, it's real. > If it's not there, and you can see it, it's virtual. > If it's there, and you can't see it, it's transparent. > If it's not there, and you can't see it, you erased it. > From what I can tell my fat program now passes with flying colors, but I need to run printf's via ssh at high speeds to make sure that my memory allocation methods combined with key generation and encryption are actually stress testing your patches. Will have results in a few. -Garrett