From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jul 18 04:56:31 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: current@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92E2C16A401; Wed, 18 Jul 2007 04:56:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from youshi10@u.washington.edu) Received: from mxout2.cac.washington.edu (mxout2.cac.washington.edu [140.142.33.4]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FDE413C467; Wed, 18 Jul 2007 04:56:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from youshi10@u.washington.edu) Received: from smtp.washington.edu (smtp.washington.edu [140.142.33.9] (may be forged)) by mxout2.cac.washington.edu (8.13.7+UW06.06/8.13.7+UW07.06) with ESMTP id l6I4uUdd021464 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 17 Jul 2007 21:56:31 -0700 X-Auth-Received: from [192.168.10.45] (c-24-10-12-194.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [24.10.12.194]) (authenticated authid=youshi10) by smtp.washington.edu (8.13.7+UW06.06/8.13.7+UW07.03) with ESMTP id l6I4uUBI013176 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 17 Jul 2007 21:56:30 -0700 Message-ID: <469D9D7D.3040600@u.washington.edu> Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 21:56:29 -0700 From: Garrett Cooper User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.4 (Windows/20070604) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Attilio Rao References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-PMX-Version: 5.3.2.304607, Antispam-Engine: 2.5.1.298604, Antispam-Data: 2007.7.17.213534 X-Uwash-Spam: Gauge=IIIIIII, Probability=7%, Report='__C230066_P2 0, __CP_URI_IN_BODY 0, __CT 0, __CTE 0, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY 0, __MIME_VERSION 0, __SANE_MSGID 0, __USER_AGENT 0' Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ULE/SCHED_SMP diff for 7.0, buildkernel & thanks. X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 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: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 04:56:31 -0000 youshi10@u.washington.edu wrote: > On Tue, 17 Jul 2007, Attilio Rao wrote: > >> 2007/7/17, Abdullah Ibn Hamad Al-Marri : >>> On 7/17/07, Jeff Roberson wrote: >>> > With regards to buildkernel times; I do not want to sacrafice >>> performance >>> > on other benchmarks to improve buildkernel. The problem is that >>> 4BSD is >>> > as agressive as possible at scheduling work on idle cores. This >>> behavior >>> > that helps one buildworld hurts on other, in my opinion, more >>> important >>> > benchmarks. >>> > >>> > For example: http://people.freebsd.org/~jeff/sysbench.png >>> > >>> > ULE is 33% faster than SCHED_4BSD at this mysql test. This is a >>> direct >>> > result of prefering to idle to make more efficient scheduling >>> decisions. >>> > ULE is also faster at various networking benchmarks for similar >>> reasons. >>> > >>> > I also believe that while the real time may be slower on >>> buildworld the >>> > system and user time will be smaller by a degree greater than the >>> delta in >>> > real time. This means that while you're building packages you have a >>> > little more cpu time leftover to handle other tasks. Furthermore, >>> as the >>> > number of cores goes up things start to tip in favor of ULE >>> although this >>> > is somewhat because it's harder for even 4BSD to keep them busy >>> due to >>> > disk bandwidth. >>> > >>> > Thanks everyone for testing. Can someone confirm that they have >>> tested >>> > with x86 rather than amd64? I will probably commit later today. >>> > >>> > Thanks, >>> > Jeff >>> >>> Did you compare it to latest Linux fixes? is FreeBSD + ULE + MySQL >>> still faster than linux? >> >> Just look at the link Jeff posted, it seems very well explaining :). >> >> Attilio >> >> >> -- >> Peace can only be achieved by understanding - A. Einstein > > Unfortunately those results are still based on 2.6.20, not 2.6.22 (2 > minor patch revision difference). > > I assume that that's for a vanilla Linux kernel? > > -Garrett Scratch my earlier comment about it works just fine. I seem to have broken my VM again, but it took 5+something iterations this round to get it to break. Now I have to restart Windows because of the random instabilities :). -Garrett