Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 01:04:40 +0200 From: Emanuel Strobl <Emanuel.strobl@gmx.net> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Cc: David Xu <davidxu@freebsd.org>, Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Subject: Re: 4BSD/ULE numbers... Message-ID: <200509270104.48754@harrymail> In-Reply-To: <43387811.1090308@freebsd.org> References: <200509261847.35558@harrymail> <20050926174738.GA57284@xor.obsecurity.org> <43387811.1090308@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--nextPart2298045.IkdbGiNYLN Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Am Dienstag, 27. September 2005 00:37 CEST schrieb David Xu: [...] > I am fiddling it, although I don't know when I can finish. > In fact, the ULE code in my perforce has same performance as > 4BSD, at least this is true on my Dual PIII machine. the real > advantage is ULE can be HTT friendly if it make it correctly, > for example physical / logical CPU balance, if system has two > HTT enabled physical CPU, if system has too CPU hog threads, > you definitely want the two threads to run on the two physical > cpu, not in same phyiscal cpu. I'm sure ULE is on it's way to be our prefered scheduler, especially on MP= =20 machines, where it's probably already superior, and I don't really care=20 much about the small differences in bonnie++ or flops bench-results, nor=20 in the small timing differences, but I'm astonished about the really big=20 gap between the "make configure" timings of ULE and 4BSD. (on my Tualatin=20 UP) The difference is really enormuous (samba.configure.bsd.time compared to=20 samba.configure.ule.time =3D=3D 3m15s <-> 5m30s) and there's still a thing = I=20 observed some years ago (about two, when I ran seti@home in the=20 background): ULE isn't "nice" friendly, meaning other applications suffer=20 from niced processes much more than under 4BSD. Ideally, in my dreams, no=20 other process would loose performance because of any "niced" process.=20 Watch the samba.configure.ule.nonice.time -> samba.configure.ule.time=20 results, they're nearly identical... But that's the point where I have to leave this discussion, my knowledge is= =20 very limited in that area, so I just wanted to give info/hints to help the= =20 gurus improoving the best. The better is the bests enemy... ;) And I hope I can help with "real world" tests to see ULE outperforming 4BSD= =20 even on UP machines with bonnie++ (where I see the second significant=20 difference) Best regards! =2DHarry > but current it is not. Another advantage is when sched_lock pushes > down, I know current sched_lock is a Giant lock between large > number of CPU, also I don't know when sched_lock will be pushed > down, sched_lock is abused in many place, they really can be replaced > by another spin lock. :) > > David Xu --nextPart2298045.IkdbGiNYLN Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQBDOH6QBylq0S4AzzwRAj11AJ0Y4FxWzDUp2VUiQ3sf1KPhcG6T1gCfTYAL hWSgqmfGuJPptpqK+BYUPeM= =FIYL -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart2298045.IkdbGiNYLN--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200509270104.48754>