From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Dec 23 22:49:53 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 111151065675; Fri, 23 Dec 2011 22:49:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from adrian.chadd@gmail.com) Received: from mail-vw0-f54.google.com (mail-vw0-f54.google.com [209.85.212.54]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 993128FC08; Fri, 23 Dec 2011 22:49:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: by vbbfr13 with SMTP id fr13so13513880vbb.13 for ; Fri, 23 Dec 2011 14:49:51 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=9oXyzbLtwFQMWafaY9nzsUyuZgb7svjIANB7ro3UVMM=; b=TfnhI5k0VZDBffnYDCe3LntwMW7JjmjgsiXHf0LMLs7KDDbiX62ZMoZw/0fYuBPwXh Eq0EnSEgHnfZWtXDFG6aZSgv0BReokbpbs3lbhxLaFx9dkC1NoCKUHqM/kFux1x6rEip Uc4cW+6eOwoyCqm4GIivsD2Bn//yGWMiux/zw= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.24.11 with SMTP id q11mr8418774vdf.83.1324680591853; Fri, 23 Dec 2011 14:49:51 -0800 (PST) Sender: adrian.chadd@gmail.com Received: by 10.52.36.5 with HTTP; Fri, 23 Dec 2011 14:49:51 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20111223191146.GA56232@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> References: <4EE1EAFE.3070408@m5p.com> <20111215215554.GA87606@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <20111222005250.GA23115@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <20111222103145.GA42457@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> <20111222184531.GA36084@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <4EF37E7B.4020505@FreeBSD.org> <20111222194740.GA36796@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <20111223191146.GA56232@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 14:49:51 -0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: bTRnXYrKlrFXzEPEgE_JZkeYZqs Message-ID: From: Adrian Chadd To: Steve Kargl Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, Andriy Gapon Subject: Re: SCHED_ULE should not be the default X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 22:49:53 -0000 On 23 December 2011 11:11, Steve Kargl w= rote: > Ah, so goods news! =A0I cannot reproduce this problem that > I saw 3+ years ago on the 4-cpu node, which is currently > running a ULE kernel. =A0When I killed the (N+1)th job, > the N remaining jobs are spread across the N cpus. Ah, good. > One difference between the 2008 tests and today tests is > the number of available cpus. =A0In 2008, I ran the tests > on a node with 8 cpus, while today's test used only a > node with only 4 cpus. =A0If this behavior is a scaling > issue, I can't currently test it. =A0But, today's tests > are certainly encouraging. Do you not have access to anything with 8 CPUs in it? It'd be nice to get clarification that this indeed was fixed. Does ULE care (much) if the nodes are hyperthreading or real cores? Would that play a part in what it tries to schedule/spread? Adrian