Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 11:39:52 -0400 From: "Josh Carroll" <josh.carroll@gmail.com> To: "Nick Evans" <nevans@talkpoint.com> Cc: remy.nonnenmacher@activnetworks.com, Kris Kennaway <kris@freebsd.org>, freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, Bruce Evans <brde@optusnet.com.au> Subject: Re: ULE vs. 4BSD in RELENG_7 Message-ID: <8cb6106e0710240839h1a59f9f9y919e6b297c3efb8e@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20071024113434.326c3749@pleiades.nextvenue.com> References: <8cb6106e0710230902x4edf2c8eu2d912d5de1f5d4a2@mail.gmail.com> <471E343C.2040509@FreeBSD.org> <20071024171915.E84143@delplex.bde.org> <8cb6106e0710240639r20e03ce9w81ed3354338b7395@mail.gmail.com> <20071024113434.326c3749@pleiades.nextvenue.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> kern.sched.steal_thresh is/was one of the more effective tuning sysctls. rev > 1.205 of sched_ule had a change that was supposed to automatically adjust it > based on the number of cores. Is this the same 8 core system as the > other thread? In that case the commit dictates steal_thresh should be set to > 3. Give that a try. This is a quad core (single cpu) system. Do these values look proper then? kern.sched.steal_thresh: 2 kern.sched.steal_idle: 1 kern.sched.steal_htt: 1 Thanks, Josh
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?8cb6106e0710240839h1a59f9f9y919e6b297c3efb8e>