On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 7:32 AM, Gary Jennejohn <gljennjohn_at_googlemail.com> wrote: > On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 15:13:00 +0000 > Vincent Hoffman <vince_at_unsane.co.uk> wrote: > >> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> On 12/12/2011 13:47, O. Hartmann wrote: >> > >> >> Not fully right, boinc defaults to run on idprio 31 so this isn't an >> >> issue. And yes, there are cases where SCHED_ULE shows much better >> >> performance then SCHED_4BSD. [...] >> > >> > Do we have any proof at hand for such cases where SCHED_ULE performs >> > much better than SCHED_4BSD? Whenever the subject comes up, it is >> > mentioned, that SCHED_ULE has better performance on boxes with a ncpu > >> > 2. But in the end I see here contradictionary statements. People >> > complain about poor performance (especially in scientific environments), >> > and other give contra not being the case. >> It all a little old now but some if the stuff in >> http://people.freebsd.org/~kris/scaling/ >> covers improvements that were seen. >> >> http://jeffr-tech.livejournal.com/5705.html >> shows a little too, reading though Jeffs blog is worth it as it has some >> interesting stuff on SHED_ULE. >> >> I thought there were some more benchmarks floating round but cant find >> any with a quick google. >> >> >> Vince >> >> > >> > Within our department, we developed a highly scalable code for planetary >> > science purposes on imagery. It utilizes present GPUs via OpenCL if >> > present. Otherwise it grabs as many cores as it can. >> > By the end of this year I'll get a new desktop box based on Intels new >> > Sandy Bridge-E architecture with plenty of memory. If the colleague who >> > developed the code is willing performing some benchmarks on the same >> > hardware platform, we'll benchmark bot FreeBSD 9.0/10.0 and the most >> > recent Suse. For FreeBSD I intent also to look for performance with both >> > different schedulers available. >> > > > These observations are not scientific, but I have a CPU from AMD with > 6 cores (AMD Phenom(tm) II X6 1090T Processor). > > My simple test was ``make buildkernel'' while watching the core usage with > gkrellm. > > With SCHED_4BSD all 6 cores are loaded to 97% during the build phase. > I've never seen any value above 97% with gkrellm. > > With SCHED_ULE I never saw all 6 cores loaded this heavily. Usually > 2 or more cores were at or below 90%. Not really that significant, but > still a noticeable difference in apparent scheduling behavior. Whether > the observed difference is due to some change in data from the kernel to > gkrellm is beyond me. SCHED_ULE is much sloppier about calculating which thread used a timeslice -- unless the timeslice went 100% to a thread, the fraction it used may get attributed elsewhere. So top's reporting of thread usage is not a useful metric. Total buildworld time is, potentially. Thanks, matthewReceived on Mon Dec 12 2011 - 15:04:37 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:21 UTC