Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 20:52:02 +0200 (CEST) From: Ivan Voras <ivoras@geri.cc.fer.hr> To: Jeff Roberson <jroberson@chesapeake.net> Cc: Niki Denev <nike_d@cytexbg.com>, Ivan Voras <ivoras@fer.hr>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: On schedulers Message-ID: <20070805204321.H43187@geri.cc.fer.hr> In-Reply-To: <20070803034628.U561@10.0.0.1> References: <f8o49l$sd1$1@sea.gmane.org> <46B1C69D.6070503@cytexbg.com> <20070802181239.O561@10.0.0.1> <20070803034628.U561@10.0.0.1>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 3 Aug 2007, Jeff Roberson wrote: > On Thu, 2 Aug 2007, Jeff Roberson wrote: > >> On Thu, 2 Aug 2007, Niki Denev wrote: >> >>> Both idle and glxgears are run as normal user. >> >> Can you tell me what % cpu is going to each process during this time? These >> results are surprising. For workloads like this ULE should essentially >> implement a 'fair' scheduling policy. However, so should 4BSD. So I'm not >> yet sure why the slowdown wouldn't be relative to the number of running >> threads. Also, 'vmstat 1' output would be useful. I'm glad this discussion is happening, but: - I wasn't really interested in 3D performance, but mostly in if there's theoretical modelling of how ULE should perform, and/or its comparison to Linux (e.g. elaboration of what 'fair' means for ULE). - People who know (meaning those who work with or develop X11) say that glxgears is awful for testing graphical performance. I don't know exactly why is that, but I've seen widely varying results from glxgears on related mailing lists that seem to confirm this. From personal experience I've seen glxgears "topping out" with much idle CPU left, both extremely high and extremely low results from it on hardware that shouldn't behave like that, so I agree with this. Quake should be much better for benchmarking :)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070805204321.H43187>