Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 15 Dec 2011 22:30:08 +0100
From:      Attilio Rao <attilio@freebsd.org>
To:        Mike Tancsa <mike@sentex.net>
Cc:        Ivan Klymenko <fidaj@ukr.net>, mdf@freebsd.org, Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org>, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, Jilles Tjoelker <jilles@stack.nl>, "O. Hartmann" <ohartman@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de>, Current FreeBSD <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>, freebsd-performance@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: SCHED_ULE should not be the default
Message-ID:  <CAJ-FndCkgcH%2Bky_dOSzTrKXeBQNrjXkb--ihAJ6MDdNv4BqdUg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4EEA5F5C.8080503@sentex.net>
References:  <4EE1EAFE.3070408@m5p.com> <4EE22421.9060707@gmail.com> <4EE6060D.5060201@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de> <4EE69C5A.3090005@FreeBSD.org> <20111213104048.40f3e3de@nonamehost.> <20111213230441.GB42285@stack.nl> <4ee7e2d3.0a3c640a.4617.4a33SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <CAMBSHm89SkzGVgk9kNwBQoR62pXKjhJ%2BqXJK0qwC20r9p%2Bu-bw@mail.gmail.com> <4EE8D607.1000504@sentex.net> <CAJ-FndBP1C5W-LAB4QF-ro%2BuaEaTx7ZzAAS3nXFY_82WXt53YQ@mail.gmail.com> <4EEA227E.7080704@sentex.net> <CAJ-FndAR10dwgtb11BLG2savNc8ZX9_nSkaj%2B5_RthDhsOgTnQ@mail.gmail.com> <4EEA25BB.7040706@sentex.net> <CAJ-FndCsGUTHM2AY3C%2B2ucup9=B5k0WPKmfcy4SDKNb0xv85BQ@mail.gmail.com> <4EEA5F5C.8080503@sentex.net>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
2011/12/15 Mike Tancsa <mike@sentex.net>:
> On 12/15/2011 11:56 AM, Attilio Rao wrote:
>> So, as very first thing, can you try the following:
>> - Same codebase, etc. etc.
>> - Make the test 4 times, discard the first and ministat for the other 3
>> - Reboot
>> - Change the steal_thresh value
>> - Make the test 4 times, discard the first and ministat for the other 3
>>
>> Then report discarded values and the ministated one and we will have
>> more informations I guess
>> (also, I don't think devfs contention should play a role here, thus
>> nevermind about it for now).
>
>
> Results and data at
>
> http://www.tancsa.com/ule-bsd.html

I'm not totally sure, what does burnP6 do? is it a CPU-bound workload?
Also, how many threads are spanked in your case for parallel bzip2?

Also, it would be very good if you could arrange these tests against
newer -CURRENT (with userland and kerneland debugging off).

Thanks a lot of your hard work,
Attilio


-- 
Peace can only be achieved by understanding - A. Einstein



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAJ-FndCkgcH%2Bky_dOSzTrKXeBQNrjXkb--ihAJ6MDdNv4BqdUg>