From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Dec 17 21:13:30 2011
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG>
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 B2D49106566C
	for <freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org>; Sat, 17 Dec 2011 21:13:30 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from avg@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from citadel.icyb.net.ua (citadel.icyb.net.ua [212.40.38.140])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B96A78FC13
	for <freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org>; Sat, 17 Dec 2011 21:13:29 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from porto.starpoint.kiev.ua (porto-e.starpoint.kiev.ua
	[212.40.38.100])
	by citadel.icyb.net.ua (8.8.8p3/ICyb-2.3exp) with ESMTP id XAA09521;
	Sat, 17 Dec 2011 23:13:18 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from avg@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1])
	by porto.starpoint.kiev.ua with esmtp (Exim 4.34 (FreeBSD))
	id 1Rc1ZG-0009tX-Fh; Sat, 17 Dec 2011 23:13:18 +0200
Message-ID: <4EED05EC.8050103@FreeBSD.org>
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 23:13:16 +0200
From: Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64;
	rv:8.0) Gecko/20111206 Thunderbird/8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: George Mitchell <george+freebsd@m5p.com>
References: <4EE1EAFE.3070408@m5p.com>
	<CAJ-FndDniGH8QoT=kUxOQ+zdVhWF0Z0NKLU0PGS-Gt=BK6noWw@mail.gmail.com>
	<4EE2AE64.9060802@m5p.com> <4EE88343.2050302@m5p.com>
	<CAFHbX1+5PttyZuNnYot8emTn_AWkABdJCvnpo5rcRxVXj0ypJA@mail.gmail.com>
	<4EE933C6.4020209@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
	<CAPjTQNEJDE17TLH-mDrG_-_Qa9R5N3mSeXSYYWtqz_DFidzYQw@mail.gmail.com>
	<4EECD261.2080208@m5p.com>
In-Reply-To: <4EECD261.2080208@m5p.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: undefined
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org, Oliver Pinter <oliver.pntr@gmail.com>
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 <freebsd-stable.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>,
	<mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 21:13:30 -0000

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