From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jul 29 02:14:18 2007 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 B06CD16A418 for ; Sun, 29 Jul 2007 02:14:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from joao@matik.com.br) Received: from msrv.matik.com.br (msrv.matik.com.br [200.152.83.14]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFE1A13C457 for ; Sun, 29 Jul 2007 02:14:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from joao@matik.com.br) Received: from ap-h.matik.com.br (ap-h.matik.com.br [200.152.83.36]) by msrv.matik.com.br (8.14.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l6T2EINO033504; Sat, 28 Jul 2007 23:14:18 -0300 (BRT) (envelope-from joao@matik.com.br) From: JoaoBR Organization: Infomatik To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 23:14:14 -0300 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.7 References: <200707271109.51334.joao@matik.com.br> <200707281903.54973.joao@matik.com.br> <20070728232102.GG1152@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <20070728232102.GG1152@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200707282314.14446.joao@matik.com.br> X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV version 0.90.3, clamav-milter version 0.90.3 on msrv.matik.com.br X-Virus-Status: Clean Cc: Peter Jeremy Subject: Re: powerd freeze with amd 5000 X2 but not with lower cpus 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: Sun, 29 Jul 2007 02:14:18 -0000 On Saturday 28 July 2007 20:21:02 Peter Jeremy wrote: > On 2007-Jul-28 19:03:54 -0300, JoaoBR wrote: > >so using ULE in 7 is ok ? ? ? > > Yes. > I thought it is SCHED_SMP on 7 ... isn't it? if not forget my joke, I remem= ber=20 a msg from Roberson saying the _SMP will substitute _ULE on 7 but I do not= =20 use 7 so may be it changed later back to it's original name > >ULE in 6.x is absolutely ok and it runs depending on situation faster th= an > >4BSD with correct kernel and sysctl settings for it and it is perfectly > >stable, > > This is simply wrong. ULE in 6.x is known to have problems and is > unsupported. If the problems do not affect your particular workload > then fine. If you have _any_ problems whilst running with ULE in 6.x, > your problems will not be invstigated unless you can reproduce the > problem with the 4BSD scheduler. > interesting, what do you know? Do you have some data to share? I don't know where you got your info but I have 50 X2 SMP amd64 running an= d=20 25 or so dual-opteron dualcores with SCHED_ULE absolute rockstable and fast= er=20 than 4BSD, as I mentioned under the circumstances I described before I also have more 40 or so X2s and 60 or so dual and quad opteron dualcores = =20 running 4BSD and before you tell me more blabla copied from newspapers and= =20 other cha-cha sources better you come to me with data (DATA=3Dnumbers) from= =20 *real* world > As Kris stated, reporting problems in 6.x when you are running ULE is > just wasting developer resources. well I also don't know where you got this because I *never ever* claimed an= y=20 problem with ULE=20 > > Please stop implying that people should be using ULE in 6.x unless you > are willing to personally provide support for them. I also do not know where you got this because I also *never ever* implied= =20 using ULE, I simply say that I do *NOT* have any problem with it the way I= =20 use it So you please read the complete msgs and *try* to understand them before=20 answering with distortions and irrelevant conversations=20 =2D-=20 Jo=E3o A mensagem foi scaneada pelo sistema de e-mail e pode ser considerada segura. Service fornecido pelo Datacenter Matik https://datacenter.matik.com.br