From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Nov 2 03:09:28 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 898DB16A4CE for ; Sun, 2 Nov 2003 03:09:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.chesapeake.net (chesapeake.net [208.142.252.6]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FBE743FBD for ; Sun, 2 Nov 2003 03:09:27 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jroberson@chesapeake.net) Received: from localhost (jroberson@localhost) by mail.chesapeake.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hA2B9Ni48626; Sun, 2 Nov 2003 06:09:24 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from jroberson@chesapeake.net) Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2003 06:09:23 -0500 (EST) From: Jeff Roberson To: Bruce Evans In-Reply-To: <20031101035603.G610@gamplex.bde.org> Message-ID: <20031102055955.U10222-100000@mail.chesapeake.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: More ULE bugs fixed. X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 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: Sun, 02 Nov 2003 11:09:28 -0000 On Sat, 1 Nov 2003, Bruce Evans wrote: > On Fri, 31 Oct 2003, Jeff Roberson wrote: > > > I have commited my SMP fixes. I would appreciate it if you could post > > update results. ULE now outperforms 4BSD in a single threaded kernel > > compile and performs almost identically in a 16 way make. I still have a > > few more things that I can do to improve the situation. I would expect > > ULE to pull further ahead in the months to come. > > My simple make benchmark now takes infinitely longer with ULE under SMP, > since make -j 16 with ULE under SMP now hangs nfs after about a minute. > 4BSD works better. However, some networking bugs have developed in the > last few days. One of their manifestations is that SMP kernels always > panic in sbdrop() on shutdown. > > > The nice issue is still outstanding, as is the incorrect wcpu reporting. > > It may be related to nfs processes not getting any cycles even when there > are no niced processes. > I've just run your script myself. I was using sched_ule.c rev 1.75. I did not encounter any problem. I also have not run it with 4BSD so I don't have any performance comparisons. Hopefully the next time you have an opportunity to test things will go smoothly. I fixed a bug in sched_prio() that may have caused this behavior. You commented on the nice cutoff before. What do you believe the correct behavior is? In ULE I went to great lengths to be certain that I emulated the old behavior of denying nice +20 processes cpu time when anything nice 0 or above was running. As a result of that, nice -20 processes inhibit any processes with a nice below zero from receiving cpu time. Prior to a commit earlier today, nice -20 would stop nice 0 processes that were non-interactive. I've changed that though so nice 0 will always be able to run, just with a small slice. Based on your earlier comments, you don't believe that this behavior is correct, why, and what would you like to see? Thanks, Jeff > Bruce > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >