From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jul 17 17:58:27 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 EDC0816A404 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2007 17:58:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from youshi10@u.washington.edu) Received: from mxout4.cac.washington.edu (mxout4.cac.washington.edu [140.142.33.19]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C86CA13C4AC for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2007 17:58:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from youshi10@u.washington.edu) Received: from hymn01.u.washington.edu (hymn01.u.washington.edu [140.142.8.55]) by mxout4.cac.washington.edu (8.13.7+UW06.06/8.13.7+UW07.06) with ESMTP id l6HHwRuh029715 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 17 Jul 2007 10:58:27 -0700 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hymn01.u.washington.edu (8.13.7+UW06.06/8.13.7+UW07.03) with ESMTP id l6HHwQxf027305; Tue, 17 Jul 2007 10:58:26 -0700 X-Auth-Received: from [192.55.52.10] by hymn01.u.washington.edu via HTTP; Tue, 17 Jul 2007 10:58:26 PDT Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 10:58:26 -0700 (PDT) From: youshi10@u.washington.edu To: Claus Guttesen In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-PMX-Version: 5.3.2.304607, Antispam-Engine: 2.5.1.298604, Antispam-Data: 2007.7.17.103841 X-Uwash-Spam: Gauge=IIIIIII, Probability=7%, Report='SUPERLONG_LINE 0.05, NO_REAL_NAME 0, __CT 0, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY 0, __MIME_VERSION 0, __SANE_MSGID 0' 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 17:58:28 -0000 On Tue, 17 Jul 2007, Claus Guttesen wrote: >> > 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. >> > >> >> 4bsd vs ULE >> >> -j 3 buildkernel: 11:43 vs -j 3 buildkernel: 13:23 >> >> -j 4 buildkernel: 12:02 vs -j 4 buildkernel: 12:38 >> >> >> ULE is always slower? > > In my case yes. > > -- > regards > Claus > > When lenity and cruelty play for a kingdom, > the gentlest gamester is the soonest winner. > > Shakespeare Sorry to say, but last year's Xeons were very lackluster in terms of capability/performance, and there were rumors flying around that the Conroes (desktop chips) fared better than the 1st gen Woodcrest (?) chips :(.. That's changed in the later Xeons though =\.. -Garrett