From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Sun Oct 26 23:22:51 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 321B216A4B3
	for <current@freebsd.org>; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 23:22:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.chesapeake.net (chesapeake.net [208.142.252.6])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 462D843F3F
	for <current@freebsd.org>; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 23:22:50 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from jroberson@chesapeake.net)
Received: from localhost (jroberson@localhost)
	by mail.chesapeake.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h9R7Mdh13589;
	Mon, 27 Oct 2003 02:22:39 -0500 (EST)
	(envelope-from jroberson@chesapeake.net)
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 02:22:39 -0500 (EST)
From: Jeff Roberson <jroberson@chesapeake.net>
To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
In-Reply-To: <20031017180118.U7662@gamplex.bde.org>
Message-ID: <20031027021905.I43805-100000@mail.chesapeake.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
cc: current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: More ULE bugs fixed.
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 07:22:51 -0000

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003, Bruce Evans wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Oct 2003, Jeff Roberson wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 17 Oct 2003, Bruce Evans wrote:
> >
> > > How would one test if it was an improvement on the 4BSD scheduler?  It
> > > is not even competitive in my simple tests.
> > > ...
> >
> > At one point ULE was at least as fast as 4BSD and in most cases faster.
> > This is a regression.  I'll sort it out soon.
>
> How much faster?
>

make kernel on UP seems to be within 1% of 4BSD now.  I actually had some
runs which showed lower system time.  I think I can still improve the
situation some.  Anyway, I found some bugs relating to idle prio tasks,
and also ULE had been doing almost twice as many context switches as 4BSD.
Now it's doing about 8% more.  I'm still tracking this down.

Anyhow, it should be much closer now.  I still have some plans for SMP
that should improve things quite a bit there but UP is looking good.

Cheers,
Jeff