From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Aug 6 14:27:31 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2132916A417 for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2007 14:27:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from nike_d@cytexbg.com) Received: from office.suresupport.com (office.suresupport.com [213.145.98.15]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6A7A713C4A6 for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2007 14:27:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from nike_d@cytexbg.com) Received: (qmail 55636 invoked from network); 6 Aug 2007 14:00:48 -0000 Received: from 213.145.98.14 by office.suresupport.com (envelope-from , uid 1004) with qmail-scanner-2.01 (clamdscan: 0.88.4/1784. Clear:RC:1(213.145.98.14):. Processed in 0.379032 secs); 06 Aug 2007 14:00:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ndenev.office.suresupport.com) (213.145.98.14) by office.suresupport.com with SMTP; 6 Aug 2007 14:00:47 -0000 Message-ID: <46B7298F.2030804@cytexbg.com> Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 17:00:47 +0300 From: Niki Denev User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (X11/20070531) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ivan Voras References: <46B1C69D.6070503@cytexbg.com> <20070802181239.O561@10.0.0.1> <20070803034628.U561@10.0.0.1> <20070805204321.H43187@geri.cc.fer.hr> In-Reply-To: <20070805204321.H43187@geri.cc.fer.hr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: On schedulers X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 14:27:31 -0000 Ivan Voras wrote: > 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 :) > > Sorry for my late reply, i was out of town for the weekend. It seems that glxgears really does not give meaningfull results, because after reruning the same tests several times i got very different results. I will try to run the same test again, but with quake this week if time permits. I'm thinking about testing it with and without 3d acceleration. Best Regards, Niki