Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 21:00:36 +0200 From: "Attilio Rao" <attilio@freebsd.org> To: "Abdullah Ibn Hamad Al-Marri" <almarrie@gmail.com> Cc: Jeff Roberson <jroberson@chesapeake.net>, Claus Guttesen <kometen@gmail.com>, current@freebsd.org, lveax <lveax.m@gmail.com> Subject: Re: ULE/SCHED_SMP diff for 7.0, buildkernel & thanks. Message-ID: <3bbf2fe10707171200t4f84084bj8a206268215a9570@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <499c70c0707171155w318ece06j88f31bc19de8776b@mail.gmail.com> References: <20070716233030.D92541@10.0.0.1> <b41c75520707170318r2152b9f0l8d2ec7ea592fe450@mail.gmail.com> <469CACEC.1000103@freebsd.org> <b41c75520707170618o4106de94g57e60d2c93a68329@mail.gmail.com> <576dcbc20707170624kb671fe4ia5ddac21af93eccd@mail.gmail.com> <b41c75520707170636u116aa48fr99dfacc11945c922@mail.gmail.com> <20070717114147.J92541@10.0.0.1> <499c70c0707171155w318ece06j88f31bc19de8776b@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
2007/7/17, Abdullah Ibn Hamad Al-Marri <almarrie@gmail.com>: > On 7/17/07, Jeff Roberson <jroberson@chesapeake.net> wrote: > > With regards to buildkernel times; I do not want to sacrafice performance > > on other benchmarks to improve buildkernel. The problem is that 4BSD is > > as agressive as possible at scheduling work on idle cores. This behavior > > that helps one buildworld hurts on other, in my opinion, more important > > benchmarks. > > > > For example: http://people.freebsd.org/~jeff/sysbench.png > > > > ULE is 33% faster than SCHED_4BSD at this mysql test. This is a direct > > result of prefering to idle to make more efficient scheduling decisions. > > ULE is also faster at various networking benchmarks for similar reasons. > > > > I also believe that while the real time may be slower on buildworld the > > system and user time will be smaller by a degree greater than the delta in > > real time. This means that while you're building packages you have a > > little more cpu time leftover to handle other tasks. Furthermore, as the > > number of cores goes up things start to tip in favor of ULE although this > > is somewhat because it's harder for even 4BSD to keep them busy due to > > disk bandwidth. > > > > Thanks everyone for testing. Can someone confirm that they have tested > > with x86 rather than amd64? I will probably commit later today. > > > > Thanks, > > Jeff > > Did you compare it to latest Linux fixes? is FreeBSD + ULE + MySQL > still faster than linux? Just look at the link Jeff posted, it seems very well explaining :). Attilio -- Peace can only be achieved by understanding - A. Einstein
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3bbf2fe10707171200t4f84084bj8a206268215a9570>