From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jul 17 19:41:57 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 7117E16A402 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2007 19:41:57 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from morganw@chemikals.org) Received: from smtp2.sccoast.net (smtp2.sccoast.net [66.153.203.174]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4807F13C4BF for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2007 19:41:57 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from morganw@chemikals.org) Received: from 61.135-pool-xdsl-mi.sccoast.net ([66.153.135.61]:56793 helo=volatile.chemikals.org) by smtp2.sccoast.net with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1IAsgz-0005I5-Ol; Tue, 17 Jul 2007 15:26:41 -0400 Received: from localhost (morganw@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by volatile.chemikals.org (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l6HJR1Lb021545; Tue, 17 Jul 2007 15:27:01 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from morganw@chemikals.org) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 15:26:59 -0400 (EDT) From: Wes Morgan To: Jeff Roberson In-Reply-To: <20070717114147.J92541@10.0.0.1> Message-ID: References: <20070716233030.D92541@10.0.0.1> <469CACEC.1000103@freebsd.org> <576dcbc20707170624kb671fe4ia5ddac21af93eccd@mail.gmail.com> <20070717114147.J92541@10.0.0.1> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Cc: current@freebsd.org 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 19:41:57 -0000 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.