On Tue, 17 Jul 2007, Jeff Roberson wrote: > With regards to buildkernel times; I do not want to sacrafice performance on > other benchmarks to improve buildkernel. The problem is that 4BSD is as > agressive as possible at scheduling work on idle cores. This behavior that > helps one buildworld hurts on other, in my opinion, more important > benchmarks. > > For example: http://people.freebsd.org/~jeff/sysbench.png > > ULE is 33% faster than SCHED_4BSD at this mysql test. This is a direct > result of prefering to idle to make more efficient scheduling decisions. ULE > is also faster at various networking benchmarks for similar reasons. > > I also believe that while the real time may be slower on buildworld the > system and user time will be smaller by a degree greater than the delta in > real time. This means that while you're building packages you have a little > more cpu time leftover to handle other tasks. Furthermore, as the number of > cores goes up things start to tip in favor of ULE although this is somewhat > because it's harder for even 4BSD to keep them busy due to disk bandwidth. > > Thanks everyone for testing. Can someone confirm that they have tested with > x86 rather than amd64? I will probably commit later today. Running fine on my core duo x86 so far. Interactivity seems good with a buildworld -j4 going on.Received on Tue Jul 17 2007 - 17:41:57 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:14 UTC
