From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jul 17 11:50:05 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 C878816A496 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2007 11:50:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from anderson@freebsd.org) Received: from ns.trinitel.com (186.161.36.72.static.reverse.layeredtech.com [72.36.161.186]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EFD713C4B7 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2007 11:50:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from anderson@freebsd.org) Received: from proton.local (209-163-168-124.static.twtelecom.net [209.163.168.124]) (authenticated bits=0) by ns.trinitel.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id l6HBo4eo083922; Tue, 17 Jul 2007 06:50:05 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from anderson@freebsd.org) Message-ID: <469CACEC.1000103@freebsd.org> Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 06:50:04 -0500 From: Eric Anderson User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.4 (Macintosh/20070604) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Claus Guttesen References: <20070716233030.D92541@10.0.0.1> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=ham version=3.1.8 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.8 (2007-02-13) on ns.trinitel.com Cc: 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 11:50:05 -0000 Claus Guttesen wrote: >> 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. > > Not very scientific nor precise but using 4bsd as scheduler 'make -j 3 > buildkernel' completed in 11 min. 58 secs. and ule did the same in 13 > min. 26 secs. So ule seems slower. This is on a dual zeon @ 3.2 Ghz > (the first 64-bit from Intel, not very fast but hot) and 3 GB ram and > 15 RPM scsi-disk with /usr on zfs. > Ahah! 15 RPM drives, no wonder! :) On a serious note, can you do that same test, with '-j 4' or higher? I think you can easily do two per processor, at least that's what I do on a Core 2 Duo. Eric