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 _at_ 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