From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jul 17 13:18:44 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 C490716A408 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2007 13:18:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kometen@gmail.com) Received: from wx-out-0506.google.com (wx-out-0506.google.com [66.249.82.227]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52E1813C481 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2007 13:18:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kometen@gmail.com) Received: by wx-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id i29so1242865wxd for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2007 06:18:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=W+R3CKUx3ax0ClU7LxVOyUrxzivWFEMvGlhJ91BfOnvyQkdkBck+q0WXtsqMFh5YpI/C7/Nps6UMQL2n+b8j19/7GnWVYXZWzt+2AjJlIODq1nUgSb4bXUwssgoFlqpMtr9fZl2wqKZoG1vOUZ71+FwI7QeZBPNoeCxRBxyF9M0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=OJ4LYuBJfDBE5jOx3MjTZoqsjy2DEHvr80R5lIDRu0blx/kNTObjKid5JPGxtQj3LJN91PrLvkjYhUO39Mf9x6Aq3qgQ/xDBUzs4hno+uTDHrYw89wiZtItl41TfCocimB+2A+9GApOuFKsOXdiW3J64JOdZTW0pOqWNGJlcieM= Received: by 10.70.111.2 with SMTP id j2mr726466wxc.1184678323280; Tue, 17 Jul 2007 06:18:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.70.41.4 with HTTP; Tue, 17 Jul 2007 06:18:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 15:18:43 +0200 From: "Claus Guttesen" To: "Eric Anderson" In-Reply-To: <469CACEC.1000103@freebsd.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20070716233030.D92541@10.0.0.1> <469CACEC.1000103@freebsd.org> 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 13:18:44 -0000 > >> 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. Shure: sched_ule: -j 3 buildkernel: 13:23 -j 4 buildkernel: 12:38 -j 5 buildkernel: 12:41 -j 6 buildkernel: 12:47 sched_4bsd: -j 3 buildkernel: 11:43 -j 4 buildkernel: 12:02 So sched_ule seems to handle more processes slightly better than 4bsd albeit it does it slower. ule's sweet spot is -j 4 and 4bsd is -j 3. -- regards Claus When lenity and cruelty play for a kingdom, the gentlest gamester is the soonest winner. Shakespeare