From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Dec 12 16:47:37 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 5CC591065672; Mon, 12 Dec 2011 16:47:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gljennjohn@googlemail.com) Received: from mail-ee0-f54.google.com (mail-ee0-f54.google.com [74.125.83.54]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 920F18FC17; Mon, 12 Dec 2011 16:47:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: by eekc50 with SMTP id c50so3382840eek.13 for ; Mon, 12 Dec 2011 08:47:35 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references:reply-to :x-mailer:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Ne7LltZXZK7mD1SEiZFcIDyP8Mb797kkP51TT0gaTgc=; b=HpKS7+i6ORdEKlB0ZZOMNdQLfVhCj5U1R4RQ9U66CjKYvQBgsHLWhqZBxIOfpqu2Or NigZkoIhrXioa8tlSTgW2OEImo8bAE24IoqSjT7grHtNK0gDPGwVnRH7+1Dca0+C++UP /Ed0tVkrMrHxhwfOOE4LoQdxyW0c4ptsO0cm4= Received: by 10.14.4.134 with SMTP id 6mr2809056eej.183.1323708454160; Mon, 12 Dec 2011 08:47:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from ernst.jennejohn.org (p578E15DC.dip.t-dialin.net. [87.142.21.220]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 53sm77232850eef.2.2011.12.12.08.47.31 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 12 Dec 2011 08:47:32 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 17:47:30 +0100 From: Gary Jennejohn To: Lars Engels Message-ID: <20111212174730.0aee3e2c@ernst.jennejohn.org> In-Reply-To: <1a8a6d6f-6756-4cda-b4d6-b39d335678c1@email.android.com> References: <4EE1EAFE.3070408@m5p.com> <4EE22421.9060707@gmail.com> <4EE6060D.5060201@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de> <4EE619FC.4000601@unsane.co.uk> <20111212163221.33d0b8a2@ernst.jennejohn.org> <1a8a6d6f-6756-4cda-b4d6-b39d335678c1@email.android.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.10 (GTK+ 2.24.6; amd64-portbld-freebsd10.0) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "O. Hartmann" , Current FreeBSD , freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, Vincent Hoffman Subject: Re: SCHED_ULE should not be the default X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: gljennjohn@googlemail.com List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 16:47:37 -0000 On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 17:10:46 +0100 Lars Engels wrote: > Did you use -jX to build the world? > I'm top posting since Lars did. It was buildkernel, not buildworld. Yes, -j6. > _____________________________________________ > Von: Gary Jennejohn > Versendet am: Mon Dec 12 16:32:21 MEZ 2011 > An: Vincent Hoffman > CC: "O. Hartmann" , Current FreeBSD , freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, freebsd-performance@freebsd.org > Betreff: Re: SCHED_ULE should not be the default > > > On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 15:13:00 +0000 > Vincent Hoffman wrote: > > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > On 12/12/2011 13:47, O. Hartmann wrote: > > > > > >> Not fully right, boinc defaults to run on idprio 31 so this isn't an > > >> issue. And yes, there are cases where SCHED_ULE shows much better > > >> performance then SCHED_4BSD. [...] > > > > > > Do we have any proof at hand for such cases where SCHED_ULE performs > > > much better than SCHED_4BSD? Whenever the subject comes up, it is > > > mentioned, that SCHED_ULE has better performance on boxes with a ncpu > > > > 2. But in the end I see here contradictionary statements. People > > > complain about poor performance (especially in scientific environments), > > > and other give contra not being the case. > > It all a little old now but some if the stuff in > > http://people.freebsd.org/~kris/scaling/ > > covers improvements that were seen. > > > > http://jeffr-tech.livejournal.com/5705.html > > shows a little too, reading though Jeffs blog is worth it as it has some > > interesting stuff on SHED_ULE. > > > > I thought there were some more benchmarks floating round but cant find > > any with a quick google. > > > > > > Vince > > > > > > > > Within our department, we developed a highly scalable code for planetary > > > science purposes on imagery. It utilizes present GPUs via OpenCL if > > > present. Otherwise it grabs as many cores as it can. > > > By the end of this year I'll get a new desktop box based on Intels new > > > Sandy Bridge-E architecture with plenty of memory. If the colleague who > > > developed the code is willing performing some benchmarks on the same > > > hardware platform, we'll benchmark bot FreeBSD 9.0/10.0 and the most > > > recent Suse. For FreeBSD I intent also to look for performance with both > > > different schedulers available. > > > > > These observations are not scientific, but I have a CPU from AMD with > 6 cores (AMD Phenom(tm) II X6 1090T Processor). > > My simple test was ``make buildkernel'' while watching the core usage with > gkrellm. > > With SCHED_4BSD all 6 cores are loaded to 97% during the build phase. > I've never seen any value above 97% with gkrellm. > > With SCHED_ULE I never saw all 6 cores loaded this heavily. Usually > 2 or more cores were at or below 90%. Not really that significant, but > still a noticeable difference in apparent scheduling behavior. Whether > the observed difference is due to some change in data from the kernel to > gkrellm is beyond me. > > -- > Gary Jennejohn > _____________________________________________ > > freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > -- Gary Jennejohn