Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
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>