From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jul 17 19:21:40 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 EF88216A402 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2007 19:21:40 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from datahead4@gmail.com) Received: from nz-out-0506.google.com (nz-out-0506.google.com [64.233.162.236]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABB2913C4A6 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2007 19:21:40 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from datahead4@gmail.com) Received: by nz-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id l8so1129452nzf for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2007 12:21:40 -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=SjhhOL3xkpstmXWaclxndaSuSZxVZFqt1xv+sc6MPDjwKtvVdsFBner3uDEZxFJGL1TtZN9ZgptzaubBwesRo2Fqf8r0Vezj1gC2sLEMOyoH65LDdebCH8oVnU3r+D+Ge7tHeE5bCc7OBU14yfA3nIuQSDGsscuT5zWMXhhnBJo= 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=N+P2Zix6S7i990INZsjjzOxY3TUg7ZAIa02inWmoY8SfDmIMj/1MiWEuBUaz0HnwEFFigm/t/yM+/OoVGLQPx8p++s/dAbgo0NOWhDLB9jwzTTxvH3V7kIt9j9niu2SH8Mjcsh83kpfd9efOraA+U78bWRb3bOj4HWDHf7Yyvlk= Received: by 10.115.77.1 with SMTP id e1mr685018wal.1184698396722; Tue, 17 Jul 2007 11:53:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.205.5 with HTTP; Tue, 17 Jul 2007 11:53:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 13:53:16 -0500 From: Matt To: "Jeff Roberson" In-Reply-To: <20070717114147.J92541@10.0.0.1> 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> <576dcbc20707170624kb671fe4ia5ddac21af93eccd@mail.gmail.com> <20070717114147.J92541@10.0.0.1> Cc: lveax , current@freebsd.org, Claus Guttesen Subject: Re: ULE/SCHED_SMP diff for 7.0, buildkernel & thanks. 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 19:21:41 -0000 On 7/17/07, Jeff Roberson 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 > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > > freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list > > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current > > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > Patch applied to my i386 CURRENT system with sources checked out today. Everything compiled cleanly and system has been running well since then.