From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jan 25 16:16:57 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 563F016A4CE for ; Sun, 25 Jan 2004 16:16:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from ganymede.hub.org (u46n208.hfx.eastlink.ca [24.222.46.208]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8597143D53 for ; Sun, 25 Jan 2004 16:16:55 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from scrappy@hub.org) Received: by ganymede.hub.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 7C2DA344D9; Sun, 25 Jan 2004 20:12:51 -0400 (AST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ganymede.hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E0473449E; Sun, 25 Jan 2004 20:12:51 -0400 (AST) Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 20:12:51 -0400 (AST) From: "Marc G. Fournier" To: Jeff Roberson In-Reply-To: <20040124220826.P36463-100000@mail.chesapeake.net> Message-ID: <20040125201230.P96629@ganymede.hub.org> References: <20040124220826.P36463-100000@mail.chesapeake.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HEADS UP: ULE is the default scheduler now X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 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: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 00:16:57 -0000 Jeff, were you able to clear up the use of ULE on a single CPU machine with SMP enabled? On Sat, 24 Jan 2004, Jeff Roberson wrote: > On Sat, 24 Jan 2004, Jeff Roberson wrote: > > > ULE has entered into its probationary period as the default scheduler. > > This is intended to give it wider exposure to work out the last few kinks. > > If all goes well it will remain the default through the rest of the 5.x > > series. If you aren't running it now, please switch over. > > > > I have been out of town or very busy over the last few months. I should > > be more available to address things as they come up now. If anyone is > > aware of any current issues, please contact me with any details you may > > have. > > I was asked to follow up with a summary of why you might want to use ULE. > For the average user, interactivity is reported to be better in many > cases. This means less skipping, jerking, etc. in interactive > applications while the machine is very busy. This will not prevent > problems due to overload disk subsystems, but it does help with overloaded > CPUs. > > On SMP machines ULE has per cpu run queues which allow for CPU > affinity, CPU binding, advanced HyperThreading support, as well as > providing a framework for more optimizations in the future. This means > that as our kernel is locked better the scheduler will be able to make > more efficient use of the available parallel resources. > > ULE has been stable for some time. The only problems that are likely to > remain are corner cases where interactivity is not as good or where > performance is not as good as with the old scheduler. > > Cheers, > Jeff > > > > > Thanks, > > Jeff > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664