On 2/24/07, Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, Feb 25, 2007 at 05:47:55AM +0000, Coleman Kane wrote: > On Sun, Feb 25, 2007 at 12:41:20AM -0500, Kris Kennaway wrote, and it was proclaimed: > > On Sat, Feb 24, 2007 at 10:00:35PM -0700, Coleman Kane wrote: > > > > > What does the performance curve look like for the in-CVS 7-CURRENT tree with > > > 4BSD or ULE ? How do those stand up against the Linux SMP scheduler for > > > scalability. It would be nice to see the comparison displayed to see what > > > the performance improvements of the aforementioned patch were realized to. > > > This would likely be a nice graphics for the SMPng project page, BTW... > > > > There are graphs of this on Jeff's blog, referenced in that URL. > > Fixing filedesc locking makes a HUGE difference. > > > > Kris > > Thanks. I saw that shortly after I sent the email... /me stupid. > > How stable is ULE now since the recent swath of rewrites in the past months? I think what is in CVS for 7.x is pretty stable. One of the difficult things with schedulers is making sure that all workloads perform well, so testing in different environments is always helpful. Kris P.S. ULE in 6.x is still not recommended, but hopefully the fixes can be merged at some point.
I primarily use 7-CURRENT on my laptop. At some point I had ULE enabled just to share my experiences with development. What is the status with ULE on UP systems? Is it expected to be on-par or better than 4BSD, or is it now only recommended for MP? -- coleman _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
