From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Dec 15 16:26:30 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08DAC1065781; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 16:26:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from asmrookie@gmail.com) Received: from mail-ee0-f54.google.com (mail-ee0-f54.google.com [74.125.83.54]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BA088FC16; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 16:26:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: by eekc50 with SMTP id c50so2679678eek.13 for ; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 08:26:28 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=zm71dKbrHwDITPaDjF+CgkHwSvzGuXVS65Im4Up4UGA=; b=vy84MwsN3OjrK5jTpfX3KeozyU74p0n/QCFtpJkdxapqgaMyzMHrBEefLcpsxinmig qu6vaTOscLfWDyPT5APaxY5MNL5zcLqS7DN06TLqhWZAW9VtbR3AaVUpSL1+mloigV9E FRpDp64k/fatCR6282rafWlJbRDiY2eBPOvGI= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.180.96.103 with SMTP id dr7mr6603082wib.16.1323966388055; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 08:26:28 -0800 (PST) Sender: asmrookie@gmail.com Received: by 10.216.171.8 with HTTP; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 08:26:27 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20111213073615.GA69641@icarus.home.lan> References: <4EE1EAFE.3070408@m5p.com> <4EE22421.9060707@gmail.com> <4EE6060D.5060201@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de> <20111213073615.GA69641@icarus.home.lan> Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 17:26:27 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 0ndvCp4x9Kuw_LOxQPoNVB24Q2Q Message-ID: From: Attilio Rao To: Jeremy Chadwick Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "O. Hartmann" , Current FreeBSD , freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SCHED_ULE should not be the default 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: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 16:26:30 -0000 2011/12/13 Jeremy Chadwick : > On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 02:47:57PM +0100, O. Hartmann wrote: >> > Not fully right, boinc defaults to run on idprio 31 so this isn't an >> > issue. And yes, there are cases where SCHED_ULE shows much better >> > performance then SCHED_4BSD. =C2=A0[...] >> >> Do we have any proof at hand for such cases where SCHED_ULE performs >> much better than SCHED_4BSD? Whenever the subject comes up, it is >> mentioned, that SCHED_ULE has better performance on boxes with a ncpu > >> 2. But in the end I see here contradictionary statements. People >> complain about poor performance (especially in scientific environments), >> and other give contra not being the case. >> >> Within our department, we developed a highly scalable code for planetary >> science purposes on imagery. It utilizes present GPUs via OpenCL if >> present. Otherwise it grabs as many cores as it can. >> By the end of this year I'll get a new desktop box based on Intels new >> Sandy Bridge-E architecture with plenty of memory. If the colleague who >> developed the code is willing performing some benchmarks on the same >> hardware platform, we'll benchmark bot FreeBSD 9.0/10.0 and the most >> recent Suse. For FreeBSD I intent also to look for performance with both >> different schedulers available. > > This is in no way shape or form the same kind of benchmark as what > you're planning to do, but I thought I'd throw it out there for folks to > take in as they see fit. > > I know folks were focused mainly on buildworld. > > I personally would find it interesting if someone with a higher-end > system (e.g. 2 physical CPUs, with 6 or 8 cores per CPU) was to do the > same test (changing -jX to -j{numofcores} of course). > > -- > | Jeremy Chadwick =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0= =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0jdc at parodius.com= | > | Parodius Networking =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 http://www.parodius.com/ | > | UNIX Systems Administrator =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Mountain View, CA, US | > | Making life hard for others since 1977. =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 PGP 4BD6C0CB | > > > sched_ule > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > - time make -j2 buildworld > =C2=A01689.831u 229.328s 18:46.20 170.4% 6566+2051k 432+4264io 4565pf+0w > - time make -j2 buildkernel > =C2=A0640.542u 87.737s 9:01.38 134.5% 6490+1920k 134+5968io 0pf+0w > > > sched_4bsd > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > - time make -j2 buildworld > =C2=A01662.793u 206.908s 17:12.02 181.1% 6578+2054k 23750+4271io 6451pf+0= w > - time make -j2 buildkernel > =C2=A0638.717u 76.146s 8:34.90 138.8% 6530+1927k 6415+5903io 0pf+0w > > > software > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > * sched_ule test: =C2=A0FreeBSD 8.2-STABLE, Thu Dec =C2=A01 04:37:29 PST = 2011 > * sched_4bsd test: FreeBSD 8.2-STABLE, Mon Dec 12 22:42:54 PST 2011 Hi Jeremy, thanks for the time you spent on this. However, I wanted to ask/let you note 3 things: 1) Did you use 2 different code base for the test? (one updated on December 1 and another one on December 12) 2) Please note that you should have repeated this test several times (basically until you don't get a standard deviation which is acceptable with ministat) and report the ministat output 3) The difference is less than 2% which I suspect is really statistically unuseful/the same I'm not really even surprised ULE is not faster than 4BSD in this case because usually buildworld/buildkernel tests are driven for the vast majority by I/O overhead rather than scheduler capacity. It would be more interesting to analyze how buildworld does while another type of workload is going on. Thanks, Attilio --=20 Peace can only be achieved by understanding - A. Einstein