Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 22:28:51 +0200 From: "O. Hartmann" <ohartman@mail.uni-mainz.de> To: Ceri Davies <ceri@submonkey.net>, Maxim Konovalov <maxim@macomnet.ru>, maho@freebsd.org, freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org, freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: kern/85820: 1.5 times slower performance with SCHED_ULE than SCHED_4BSD Message-ID: <452AB103.8030305@mail.uni-mainz.de> In-Reply-To: <20061008180120.GX21333@submonkey.net> References: <200610081720.k98HKkQx058984@freefall.freebsd.org> <20061008215308.W89071@mp2.macomnet.net> <20061008180120.GX21333@submonkey.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ceri Davies wrote: > On Sun, Oct 08, 2006 at 09:54:53PM +0400, Maxim Konovalov wrote: > >> On Sun, 8 Oct 2006, 17:20-0000, Ceri Davies wrote: >> >> >>> Synopsis: 1.5 times slower performance with SCHED_ULE than SCHED_4BSD >>> >>> State-Changed-From-To: open->closed >>> State-Changed-By: ceri >>> State-Changed-When: Sun Oct 8 17:19:36 UTC 2006 >>> State-Changed-Why: >>> ULE is no longer the default scheduler, and no longer has a maintainer. >>> This is an interesting test case though. >>> >> I think better mark ULE bugs as suspended. I have plans to take them >> over. >> > > I don't intend to sweep them all. I just didn't see a problem statement > in this PR, and figured that it was due to the fact that ULE was default > at the time the PR was raised. > > Feel free to reopen it if you disagree. > > Ceri > Well, maybe I'm the only 'stupid' in this round, so be patient with me. I never realized, that SCHED_ULE has been discarded from being the default scheduler in FreeBSD 6.X, as I can remember, SCHED_ULE has been promoted to be the default scheduler due to its improvements to SMP. Yesterday I read about some bugs, but I read this in this list and therefore I do not exactly know whether these problems are AMD64 related or also be an issue on i386. Well, let me tell you some remarkeable experiences I made since yesterday. Besides my lab's work I uitilize a FreeBSD 6.2-PRE/AMD64 box with a single core Athlon64 3500+ at 2,2 GHz. This box got really slow when walking through 6.1-STABLE up to now and I tried to figure out why. At my lab's desk I use an i386 based box running a P4 at 3,0 GHz with HT capabilities, enabled both in BIOS and in the system, so this box is configured as a SMP machine. On this box, also using SCHED_ULE, I did never realize the significant performance drop as seen on AMD64. After reading about the scheduler problems, I first changed SCHED_ULE to SCHED_4BSD on my AMD64 box and realized a quite impressive performance boost (something strange and not quantified, because I see this only when working with Firefox, Thunderbird and disk access, which seem to be smoother and quite faster than before). On the lab's box, I changed also scheduler back to SCHED_4BSD, but I did not realize this massive peroformance impact as I did on the AMD64 box. Either this problem is highly related to UP kernel configs and/or UP systems as well or it is only related to the 64Bit FreeBSD or only to AMD CPUs, I do not know but would like to know more about that. Well, 'feeling' a performance impact in both directions isn't a very qualifying statement, so I would like to aks you whether you have some suitable benchmarks I can perform on both boxes to confirm my observations and give some numbers. In the first days of FreeBSD 5.0 I remember myself having seen an impressive performance boost using SCHED_ULE on a dual P3/933 Mhz box acting as a file- and databaseserver, but this advantage has obviously gone over the past. Well, Im not very close to the development issue, I'm only a FreeBSD user for scientific purposes and therefore I would appreciate any public informations on this subject. I guess many others around here still being 'stuck' on a faulty SCHED_ULE, not knowing this scheduler is about to be doomed and slowing down a box. Those guys also may act like me - installing once a system and then migrating from one minor release to the next via cvsupdate/buildworld (due to driver/hardware/support issues) and still keeping a kernel config from days, when SCHED_ULE was said to be the new ultimative scheduler even for SMP and UP boxes. Well, I may be wrong, but it would be much more convenient having those important informations being released more public , this will keep guys like me from sending stupid PRs about slowed down boxes suspecting other hardware or bugs elsewhere in the OS. Thnaks in advance, Oliver
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?452AB103.8030305>