[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: ULE/SCHED_SMP diff for 7.0



>> This patch is scheduled for inclusion in 7.0.  I would like anyone who
>> cares to run it to validate that it does not create any stability or
>> performance regression over the existing ULE.  This patch replaces ULE
>> with SCHED_SMP, which will now no longer exist as a seperate fork of ULE.
>
> Not very scientific nor precise but using 4bsd as scheduler 'make -j 3
> buildkernel' completed in 11 min. 58 secs. and ule did the same in 13
> min. 26 secs. So ule seems slower. This is on a dual zeon @ 3.2 Ghz
> (the first 64-bit from Intel, not very fast but hot) and 3 GB ram and
> 15 RPM scsi-disk with /usr on zfs.
>

Ahah!  15 RPM drives, no wonder!  :)

On a serious note, can you do that same test, with '-j 4' or higher?  I
think you can easily do two per processor, at least that's what I do on
a Core 2 Duo.

Shure:

sched_ule:

-j 3 buildkernel: 13:23
-j 4 buildkernel: 12:38
-j 5 buildkernel: 12:41
-j 6 buildkernel: 12:47

sched_4bsd:
-j 3 buildkernel: 11:43
-j 4 buildkernel: 12:02

So sched_ule seems to handle more processes slightly better than 4bsd
albeit it does it slower. ule's sweet spot is -j 4 and 4bsd is -j 3.

--
regards
Claus

When lenity and cruelty play for a kingdom,
the gentlest gamester is the soonest winner.

Shakespeare
_______________________________________________
freebsd-current_(_at_)_freebsd_(_dot_)_org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe_(_at_)_freebsd_(_dot_)_org"


Visit your host, monkey.org