From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Dec 12 16:11:27 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8A0F106567B; Mon, 12 Dec 2011 16:11:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lars.engels@0x20.net) Received: from mail.0x20.net (mail.0x20.net [IPv6:2001:aa8:fffb:1::3]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E2838FC21; Mon, 12 Dec 2011 16:11:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.0x20.net (mail.0x20.net [217.69.76.211]) by mail.0x20.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38ED66A661D; Mon, 12 Dec 2011 17:11:26 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail.0x20.net Received: from mail.0x20.net ([217.69.76.211]) by mail.0x20.net (mail.0x20.net [217.69.76.211]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NOQH_WXjvpPe; Mon, 12 Dec 2011 17:11:26 +0100 (CET) Received: from [10.26.32.239] (ip-109-84-0-111.web.vodafone.de [109.84.0.111]) (Authenticated sender: lala) by mail.0x20.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id DBC096A6619; Mon, 12 Dec 2011 17:11:22 +0100 (CET) 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> User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android In-Reply-To: <20111212163221.33d0b8a2@ernst.jennejohn.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Lars Engels Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 17:10:46 +0100 To: gljennjohn@googlemail.com,Vincent Hoffman Message-ID: <1a8a6d6f-6756-4cda-b4d6-b39d335678c1@email.android.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: "O. Hartmann" , Current FreeBSD , freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SCHED_ULE should not be the default X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 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, 12 Dec 2011 16:11:27 -0000 Did you use -jX to build the world? _____________________________________________ 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"