Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 23:13:16 +0200 From: Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org> To: George Mitchell <george+freebsd@m5p.com> Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org, Oliver Pinter <oliver.pntr@gmail.com> Subject: Re: SCHED_ULE should not be the default Message-ID: <4EED05EC.8050103@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4EECD261.2080208@m5p.com> References: <4EE1EAFE.3070408@m5p.com> <CAJ-FndDniGH8QoT=kUxOQ%2BzdVhWF0Z0NKLU0PGS-Gt=BK6noWw@mail.gmail.com> <4EE2AE64.9060802@m5p.com> <4EE88343.2050302@m5p.com> <CAFHbX1%2B5PttyZuNnYot8emTn_AWkABdJCvnpo5rcRxVXj0ypJA@mail.gmail.com> <4EE933C6.4020209@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <CAPjTQNEJDE17TLH-mDrG_-_Qa9R5N3mSeXSYYWtqz_DFidzYQw@mail.gmail.com> <4EECD261.2080208@m5p.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
on 17/12/2011 19:33 George Mitchell said the following: > Summing up for the record, in my original test: > 1. It doesn't matter whether X is running or not. > 2. The problem is not limited to two or fewer CPUs. (It also happens > for me on a six-CPU system.) > 3. It doesn't require nCPU + 1 compute-bound processes, just nCPU. > > With nCPU compute-bound processes running, with SCHED_ULE, any other > process that is interactive (which to me means frequently waiting for > I/O) gets ABYSMAL performance -- over an order of magnitude worse than > it gets with SCHED_4BSD under the same conditions. I definitely do not see anything like this. Specifically: - with X - with 2 CPUs - with nCPU and/or nCPU + 1 compute-bound processes - with SCHED_ULE obviously :-) I do not get "abysmal" performance for I/O active tasks. Perhaps there is something specific that you would want me to run and measure. -- Andriy Gapon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4EED05EC.8050103>