On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 08:29:30PM +0100, Brad Knowles wrote: > This is a transition period. 4BSD took a long time to get where > it is today, and it's going to take a while to get ULE to the point > where it is always better than 4BSD. But we have to make the > cut-over somewhere, and we have to get people using it more widely. > If we don't, then ULE will never get to the point where it could be > as good as 4BSD, much less better. Who is actively working on ULE, getting feedback from users, improving ULE, etc.? I asked some questions about the late tool used to evaluate ULE, and at first didn't get any responses, but was finally directed to look at: http://www.chesapeake.net/~jroberson/late.tgz I also mentioned on freebsd-arch that the following tool developed at University of Utah might be useful for evaluating scheduler performance on FreeBSD: http://www.cs.utah.edu/~regehr/hourglass/ I know a lot of researchers who are interested in operating system schedulers (especially for real-time systems), so leveraging off of their work couldn't hurt, and might lead to a better ULE implementation. -- Craig Rodrigues http://crodrigues.org rodrigc_at_crodrigues.orgReceived on Thu Mar 11 2004 - 15:11:10 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:47 UTC