Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 22:33:46 +0200 From: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ULE and Prescott question Message-ID: <h47t3h$a69$1@ger.gmane.org> In-Reply-To: <200907221157.n6MBvpKf028533@mp.cs.niu.edu> References: <200907221157.n6MBvpKf028533@mp.cs.niu.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enigE53D79695C2BF65D86E17A23 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Scott Bennett wrote: > This is a curiousity question. I'm running 7.2-STABLE at present = on > an old Inspiron XPS, which has a 3.4 GHz P4 Prescott CPU. I have > hyperthreading enabled in the kernel. The question is: is there any > appreciable performance difference to be expected with this hardware se= tup > between the ULE scheduler and the 4BSD scheduler? Or does the fact tha= t > there is only one core eliminate any difference in performance > characteristics? I'd guess the second thing. It's not like there's cache to be shared between cores, etc. ULE might still be better simply because it is more modern. Anyway, all recent (7.1+) versions of FreeBSD ship with ULE as default, and all FreeBSD versions < 7.0 have broken/unfinished ULE. --------------enigE53D79695C2BF65D86E17A23 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkpnd68ACgkQldnAQVacBchd3wCfWWYyNLnkzaOtFGdwONEAWpSO iZQAnRGHys+/YZ9/G9RtUkBOwXcmY8UU =HsZj -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enigE53D79695C2BF65D86E17A23--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?h47t3h$a69$1>