Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 18:28:41 +0200 From: Ivan Klymenko <fidaj@ukr.net> To: Bruce Cran <bruce@cran.org.uk> Cc: "O. Hartmann" <ohartman@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de>, Current FreeBSD <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> Subject: Re: SCHED_ULE should not be the default Message-ID: <20111212182841.31f669ca@nonamehost.> In-Reply-To: <4EE6295B.3020308@cran.org.uk> References: <4EE1EAFE.3070408@m5p.com> <4EE22421.9060707@gmail.com> <4EE6060D.5060201@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de> <20111212155159.GB73597@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <4EE6295B.3020308@cran.org.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
=D0=92 Mon, 12 Dec 2011 16:18:35 +0000 Bruce Cran <bruce@cran.org.uk> =D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=88=D0=B5=D1=82: > On 12/12/2011 15:51, Steve Kargl wrote: > > This comes up every 9 months or so, and must be approaching FAQ=20 > > status. In a HPC environment, I recommend 4BSD. Depending on the=20 > > workload, ULE can cause a severe increase in turn around time when=20 > > doing already long computations. If you have an MPI application,=20 > > simply launching greater than ncpu+1 jobs can show the problem. PS:=20 > > search the list archives for "kargl and ULE".=20 >=20 > This isn't something that can be fixed by tuning ULE? For example for=20 > desktop applications kern.sched.preempt_thresh should be set to 224 > from its default. I'm wondering if the installer should ask people > what the typical use will be, and tune the scheduler appropriately. >=20 This is by and large does not help in certain situations ...
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20111212182841.31f669ca>