From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Nov 2 20:13:19 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 306C816A418 for ; Fri, 2 Nov 2007 20:13:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from josh.carroll@gmail.com) Received: from py-out-1112.google.com (py-out-1112.google.com [64.233.166.181]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD7DD13C4B5 for ; Fri, 2 Nov 2007 20:13:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from josh.carroll@gmail.com) Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id u77so1796909pyb for ; Fri, 02 Nov 2007 13:12:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=8xeLoFzt8UJ5dZCqOvAZiKipzUTu0zXXV4nYwHYKolw=; b=Dx0hICtCsGLYu/yrzLFUrR2UkcGraT5wtC5Y+W/+idRK2Ke3uGG8DbmTk3Dyv+M+Wu0HoM0D9NNDTLiC+01TG5P6hdxQD5HzLFNtzuq+xQJeh12aXcSzFqwXsu6LLPOLA4UNZK9Sm1O0aeeV2V3CG78kqid7vjF9pn1Liwz8ROY= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=bN+iVdK4HtCObUBjQNIZixqm2eMf+R8We7is9jTONT6u7wNAQgprbeA/uozcDlsUWItfNWuv66YQ72rPVDl6JdedGQdMiQWmAsArpN4nH67PHWT6A/z6gcT9oIx+rw5zO40eYGdxaJDL/ykB9WSE2QNMOhmxIEefeMu9vbIz+kQ= Received: by 10.35.78.9 with SMTP id f9mr2449021pyl.1194033988925; Fri, 02 Nov 2007 13:06:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.35.110.17 with HTTP; Fri, 2 Nov 2007 13:06:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <8cb6106e0711021306w10c48a15s99eab526064ac814@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 16:06:28 -0400 From: "Josh Carroll" To: "Jeff Roberson" In-Reply-To: <20071102102331.G544@10.0.0.1> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <8cb6106e0710230902x4edf2c8eu2d912d5de1f5d4a2@mail.gmail.com> <20071024111105.M598@10.0.0.1> <8cb6106e0710241229i12852d8cq436f4c955ac62c56@mail.gmail.com> <20071024133240.X598@10.0.0.1> <8cb6106e0710251925s2db0117cvcb67321b08d7b2a1@mail.gmail.com> <20071102102331.G544@10.0.0.1> Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ULE vs. 4BSD in RELENG_7 X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: josh.carroll@gmail.com List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 20:13:19 -0000 > Could you try spot checking a couple of tests with kern.sched.slice set to > half its present value? 4BSD on average will use half the slice that ULE > will by default. The initial value was 13, and I changed it to 7. Here is the time result for the ffmpeg run: 13: 1:39.09 7: 1:37.01 I also ran it with 4BSD again, as I think I recompiled ffmpeg since my previous testing. It ran in: 1:35.29 So the difference in this workload is only 2.63% when I change the slice value to 7. I will re-run my super-smack testing as well and reply with the results. > This is interesting. I have had a couple of laptop users report success > in using lower power saving modes with ULE. Are these core temp > observations repeatable? Yes, seem to be. I notice the trend in the graphs whenever I'm booted into the ULE kernel for long enough to see a few hours' of data. Thanks, Josh