Re: ULE/SCHED_SMP diff for 7.0

Johan Hendriks wrote:
> Thanks,
> i did it from the dir /usr/src   
>  
> regards,
> Johan Hendriks
>  
>  
>
> ________________________________
>
> Van: Vlad GALU [mailto:dudu_at_dudu.ro]
> Verzonden: di 17-7-2007 10:13
> Aan: Johan Hendriks
> CC: current_at_freebsd.org
> Onderwerp: Re: ULE/SCHED_SMP diff for 7.0
>
>
>
> On 7/17/07, Johan Hendriks <Johan_at_double-l.nl> wrote:
>   
>> Sorry for the lame question but how do i apply the patch ?
>>
>>     
>     cd /usr/src/sys && patch < /path/to/ule.diff.
>
>   
>> regards
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> Van: owner-freebsd-current_at_freebsd.org namens Jeff Roberson
>> Verzonden: di 17-7-2007 8:35
>> Aan: current_at_freebsd.org
>> Onderwerp: ULE/SCHED_SMP diff for 7.0
>>
>>
>>
>> http://people.freebsd.org/~jeff/ule.diff
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Briefly, this is still a very suitable scheduler for uniprocessor machines
>> while providing stronger affinity and other performance improvements for
>> multiprocessor machines.
>>
>> Even "works for me!" type responses are welcome so I know roughly how many
>> people have tested before I commit this close to release.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Jeff
>
> --
> If it's there, and you can see it, it's real.
> If it's not there, and you can see it, it's virtual.
> If it's there, and you can't see it, it's transparent.
> If it's not there, and you can't see it, you erased it.
>   

    From what I can tell my fat program now passes with flying colors, 
but I need to run printf's via ssh at high speeds to make sure that my 
memory allocation methods combined with key generation and encryption 
are actually stress testing your patches.
    Will have results in a few.
-Garrett