From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Dec 13 21:25:31 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F38F106564A; Tue, 13 Dec 2011 21:25:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Received: from smarthost1.sentex.ca (smarthost1-6.sentex.ca [IPv6:2607:f3e0:0:1::12]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E5C58FC08; Tue, 13 Dec 2011 21:25:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [IPv6:2607:f3e0:0:4:f025:8813:7603:7e4a] (saphire3.sentex.ca [IPv6:2607:f3e0:0:4:f025:8813:7603:7e4a]) by smarthost1.sentex.ca (8.14.5/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pBDLPTtq038329; Tue, 13 Dec 2011 16:25:29 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Message-ID: <4EE7C2BE.9020509@sentex.net> Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 16:25:18 -0500 From: Mike Tancsa Organization: Sentex Communications User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org References: <4EE1EAFE.3070408@m5p.com> <4EE22421.9060707@gmail.com> <4EE6060D.5060201@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de> <20111212155159.GB73597@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <4EE751E2.60204@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de> <20111213155456.GA93017@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> In-Reply-To: <20111213155456.GA93017@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.71 on IPv6:2607:f3e0:0:1::12 Cc: Current FreeBSD , freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SCHED_ULE should not be the default X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 21:25:31 -0000 On 12/13/2011 10:54 AM, Steve Kargl wrote: > > I have given the WHY in previous discussions of ULE, based > on what you call legacy benchmarks. I have not seen any > commit to sched_ule.c that would lead me to believe that > the performance issues with ULE and cpu-bound numerical > codes have been addressed. Repeating the benchmark would > be a waste of time. Trying a simple pbzip2 on a large file, the results are pretty consistent through iterations. pbzip2 with 4BSD is barely faster on a file thats 322MB in size. after a reboot, I did a strings bigfile > /dev/null then ran pbzip2 -v xaa -c > /dev/null 7 times If I do a burnP6 in the background, they perform about the same. (from sysutils/cpuburn) eg pbzip2 -v xaa -c > /dev/null Parallel BZIP2 v1.1.6 - by: Jeff Gilchrist [http://compression.ca] [Oct. 30, 2011] (uses libbzip2 by Julian Seward) Major contributions: Yavor Nikolov # CPUs: 4 BWT Block Size: 900 KB File Block Size: 900 KB Maximum Memory: 100 MB ------------------------------------------- File #: 1 of 1 Input Name: xaa Output Name: Input Size: 352404831 bytes Compressing data... Output Size: 50630745 bytes ------------------------------------------- Wall Clock: 18.139342 seconds ULE 18.113204 18.116896 18.123400 18.105894 18.163332 18.139342 18.082888 ULE with burnP6 23.076085 22.003666 21.162987 21.682445 21.935568 23.595781 21.601277 4BSD 17.983395 17.986218 18.009254 18.004312 18.001494 17.997032 4BSD with burnP6 22.215508 21.886459 21.595179 21.361830 21.325351 21.244793 # ministat uleP6 bsdP6 x uleP6 + bsdP6 +------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |x + + + + x + x x + x x| | |____|______________MA____________________|M_____________A__________________________________________________| | +------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ N Min Max Median Avg Stddev x 6 21.162987 23.595781 22.003666 22.242755 0.91175566 + 6 21.244793 22.215508 21.595179 21.604853 0.3792413 No difference proven at 95.0% confidence x ule + bsd +------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |+ + + + + + x x x x x x x| | |______A___M___| |________________M__A__________________| | +------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ N Min Max Median Avg Stddev x 7 18.082888 18.163332 18.116896 18.120708 0.025468695 + 6 17.983395 18.009254 18.001494 17.996951 0.010248473 Difference at 95.0% confidence -0.123757 +/- 0.024538 -0.68296% +/- 0.135414% (Student's t, pooled s = 0.0200388) hardware is X3450 with 8G of memory. RELENG8 ---Mike -- ------------------- Mike Tancsa, tel +1 519 651 3400 Sentex Communications, mike@sentex.net Providing Internet services since 1994 www.sentex.net Cambridge, Ontario Canada http://www.tancsa.com/