From owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Sep 30 22:33:15 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-src@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6106116A418; Sun, 30 Sep 2007 22:33:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jroberson@chesapeake.net) Received: from webaccess-cl.virtdom.com (webaccess-cl.virtdom.com [216.240.101.25]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E70C013C481; Sun, 30 Sep 2007 22:33:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jroberson@chesapeake.net) Received: from [192.168.1.103] (c-67-160-44-208.hsd1.wa.comcast.net [67.160.44.208]) (authenticated bits=0) by webaccess-cl.virtdom.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l8UMXCof053657 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-DSS-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 30 Sep 2007 18:33:13 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jroberson@chesapeake.net) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 15:35:58 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Roberson X-X-Sender: jroberson@10.0.0.1 To: Kevin Oberman In-Reply-To: <20070930040318.094E345018@ptavv.es.net> Message-ID: <20070930153430.U583@10.0.0.1> References: <20070930040318.094E345018@ptavv.es.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: src-committers@freebsd.org, cvs-src@freebsd.org, Jeff Roberson , cvs-all@freebsd.org, Ben Kaduk , Garance A Drosehn Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern sched_ule.c X-BeenThere: cvs-src@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the src tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 22:33:15 -0000 On Sat, 29 Sep 2007, Kevin Oberman wrote: >> Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 23:25:08 -0400 >> From: "Ben Kaduk" >> Sender: owner-cvs-all@freebsd.org >> >> On 9/29/07, Garance A Drosehn wrote: >>> At 4:39 PM +0000 9/27/07, Jeff Roberson wrote: >>>> >>>> Modified files: >>>> sys/kern sched_ule.c >>>> Log: >>>> - ... >>>> - Assert that we're not trying to compile ULE on an unsupported >>>> architecture. To date, I believe only i386 and amd64 have >>>> implemented the third cpu switch argument required. >>>> >>>> Approved by: re >>> >>> Does this mean that I should not switch to ULE on my single-CPU PowerPC >>> mini-Mac? >>> >> >> I was under the impression that BSD is preferred to ULE for single-processor >> systems, irregardless of the processor architecture. > > YMMV, but ULE seems to generally work better then 4BSD for interactive > uniprocessor systems. The preferred scheduler for uniprocessor servers > is less clear, but many test have shown ULE does better for those > systems in the majority of cases. I feel it's safe to say desktop behavior on UP is definitely superior. I think there is no significant difference on UP between 4BSD and ULE except perhaps in context switching microbenchmarks where ULE falls behind. > > While I believe the plan is that 4BSD be in GENERIC in 7.0, but I > suspect ULE (which may still need optimizing to do in a few areas) will > soon be the standard scheduler for all 386 and amd64 systems. I'm not sure if the plan is settled yet, however you're probably right. > > Jeff has done quite a job on ULE. Thanks, Jeff > -- > R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer > Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) > Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) > E-mail: oberman@es.net Phone: +1 510 486-8634 > Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4 EADA 927D EBB3 987B 3751 >