Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 17 Jul 2007 15:26:59 -0400 (EDT)
From:      Wes Morgan <morganw@chemikals.org>
To:        Jeff Roberson <jroberson@chesapeake.net>
Cc:        current@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: ULE/SCHED_SMP diff for 7.0, buildkernel & thanks.
Message-ID:  <alpine.BSF.0.999.0707171525370.11761@ibyngvyr.purzvxnyf.bet>
In-Reply-To: <20070717114147.J92541@10.0.0.1>
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>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007, 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.

Running fine on my core duo x86 so far. Interactivity seems good with a 
buildworld -j4 going on.



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.0.999.0707171525370.11761>