From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Dec 13 11:13:44 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 505F9106564A; Tue, 13 Dec 2011 11:13:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ohartman@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de) Received: from outpost1.zedat.fu-berlin.de (outpost1.zedat.fu-berlin.de [130.133.4.66]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 057EE8FC12; Tue, 13 Dec 2011 11:13:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from inpost2.zedat.fu-berlin.de ([130.133.4.69]) by outpost1.zedat.fu-berlin.de (Exim 4.69) with esmtp (envelope-from ) id <1RaQIo-0001nB-Vq>; Tue, 13 Dec 2011 12:13:43 +0100 Received: from telesto.geoinf.fu-berlin.de ([130.133.86.198]) by inpost2.zedat.fu-berlin.de (Exim 4.69) with esmtpsa (envelope-from ) id <1RaQIo-0006uN-Sb>; Tue, 13 Dec 2011 12:13:42 +0100 Message-ID: <4EE73366.7080304@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de> Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 12:13:42 +0100 From: "O. Hartmann" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111109 Thunderbird/8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vincent Hoffman References: <4EE1EAFE.3070408@m5p.com> <4EE22421.9060707@gmail.com> <4EE6060D.5060201@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de> <4EE619FC.4000601@unsane.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <4EE619FC.4000601@unsane.co.uk> X-Enigmail-Version: undefined Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig801D5BA68A4D4252A6C8F2B4" X-Originating-IP: 130.133.86.198 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 13:10:46 +0000 Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, Current FreeBSD , freebsd-stable@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: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 11:13:44 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig801D5BA68A4D4252A6C8F2B4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 12/12/11 16:13, Vincent Hoffman wrote: >=20 > On 12/12/2011 13:47, O. Hartmann wrote: >=20 >>> 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. [...] >=20 >> 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. >=20 > http://jeffr-tech.livejournal.com/5705.html > shows a little too, reading though Jeffs blog is worth it as it has som= e > interesting stuff on SHED_ULE. >=20 > I thought there were some more benchmarks floating round but cant find > any with a quick google. >=20 >=20 > Vince >=20 >=20 Interesting, there seems to be a much more performant scheduler in 7.0, called SCHED_SMP. I have some faint recalls on that ... where is this beast gone? Oliver --------------enig801D5BA68A4D4252A6C8F2B4 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iF4EAREIAAYFAk7nM2YACgkQU6Ni+wtCKv+SoQD9E1daXYU8i3DtYikG3KoKXf3b J+ujUpCBkPNh4fs1RHUA/RkDAdKThLx4xcV7WgblHwEkkZgyLAaAEbfOz2S/s94I =TMYp -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig801D5BA68A4D4252A6C8F2B4--