On 6/5/07, Attilio Rao <attilio_at_freebsd.org> wrote: > Abdullah Ibn Hamad Al-Marri wrote: > > On 6/5/07, youshi10_at_u.washington.edu <youshi10_at_u.washington.edu> wrote: > >> On Mon, 4 Jun 2007, Abdullah Ibn Hamad Al-Marri wrote: > >> > >> > On 6/4/07, Alexey Tarasov <master_at_preved.cn> wrote: > >> >> Hi. > >> >> > >> >> > options SCHED_4BSD # 4BSD scheduler > >> >> > >> >> Try to use SCHED_ULE or SCHED_CORE. > >> >> > >> >> ::[ | | | | ]:: > >> >> Alexey Tarasov > >> >> master_at_preved.cn > >> > > >> > I thought Davidxu removed SCHED_CORE for SCHED_ULE, am I missing > >> something? > >> > -- > >> > Regards, > >> > > >> > -Abdullah Ibn Hamad Al-Marri > >> > Arab Portal > >> > http://www.WeArab.Net/ > >> > >> I think so. Try SCHED_ULE. > >> > >> -Garrett > > > > I'm using ULE now, and I see mysqld could use 104%in WCPU. > > > > But do you know why services still share the cpu0 instead of using CPU1 > > > > PID USERNAME THR PRI NICE SIZE RES STATE C TIME WCPU COMMAND > > 598 mysql 16 44 0 639M 633M ucond 0 50:53 4.83% mysqld > > 740 services 3 44 0 54292K 51352K select 0 3:08 0.00% services > > > > I wish kernel can balance using both CORES with ULE 2.0 > > ULE currently uses some tricks in order to avoid too many sched_lock > acquisitions that pessimize in load balancing and in pick_pri case. > In the night, I think Jeff is going to commit the infrastructure to let > sched_lock back home and soon we will have ULE sched_lock free. It means > that we could really have a good balancing and an effective usage of > pick_pri for it. > > As saying: it is a known bug, and partially intentional... > > Attilio Attilio, Thanks for explaining the issue deeper. So is fixing this issue would make FreeBSD runs apps faster than Linux or we will get the same result that linux offers now? -- Regards, -Abdullah Ibn Hamad Al-Marri Arab Portal http://www.WeArab.Net/Received on Mon Jun 04 2007 - 19:56:28 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:11 UTC