Re: ULE and current.

> Now that 5.2 has been branched I will soon be making ULE the default
> scheduler in GENERIC.  I'm hoping that before I throw the switch
> I'll get more feedback from current users.  The only big change I
> have in the pipeline for ULE is improved HTT support.  This has all
> been coded and tested locally.  I'm going to commit this after
> things settle down on HEAD a little more.
> 
> The plan is to leave ULE as the default until we get to 5.3 at which
> point we will decide whether or not it is production quality.  The
> most untest workload that I know of is on massive multiuser systems
> with lots of interactive tasks.  If anyone has such a system, I
> would love to hear of feedback while running ULE.  For anyone else,
> if your workload is either improved or hindered, I'd appreciate a
> mail with the a description of your workload, your hardware,
> behavior with ULE, and behavior with 4BSD.

I've been using ULE for several months now and have found it usable,
though nice'ing various processes doesn't seem to influence the
scheduler much.  I can run a non-parallel buildworld at +10, xmms at
-10, and xmms is still CPU starved (is far from IO bound too) and it
sounds like I'm listening to a 9600 baud modem.  It's kind of a cool
effect, but I don't think it's the desired by the masses.  Lastly, are
you going to continue to investigate the performance differences
between BSD and ULE?  I haven't seen any changes to improve ULE's
performance of the late.

Just some feedback/questions.  -sc

-- 
Sean Chittenden