Re: SCHED_ULE should not be the default

2011-12-13 Thread Bruce Evans
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011, Ivan Klymenko wrote: ?? Wed, 14 Dec 2011 00:04:42 +0100 Jilles Tjoelker ??: On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 10:40:48AM +0200, Ivan Klymenko wrote: If the algorithm ULE does not contain problems - it means the problem has Core2Duo, or in a piece of code that uses the ULE

Re: SCHED_ULE should not be the default

2011-12-13 Thread Ivan Klymenko
В Tue, 13 Dec 2011 16:01:56 -0800 m...@freebsd.org пишет: > On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 3:39 PM, Ivan Klymenko wrote: > > В Wed, 14 Dec 2011 00:04:42 +0100 > > Jilles Tjoelker пишет: > > > >> On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 10:40:48AM +0200, Ivan Klymenko wrote: > >> > If the algorithm ULE does not contain

Re: SCHED_ULE should not be the default

2011-12-13 Thread Ivan Klymenko
В Tue, 13 Dec 2011 23:02:15 + Marcus Reid пишет: > On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 04:29:14PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote: > > On 12/12/2011 05:47, O. Hartmann wrote: > > > Do we have any proof at hand for such cases where SCHED_ULE > > > performs much better than SCHED_4BSD? > > > > I complained about

Re: SCHED_ULE should not be the default

2011-12-13 Thread Ivan Klymenko
В Wed, 14 Dec 2011 00:04:42 +0100 Jilles Tjoelker пишет: > On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 10:40:48AM +0200, Ivan Klymenko wrote: > > If the algorithm ULE does not contain problems - it means the > > problem has Core2Duo, or in a piece of code that uses the ULE > > scheduler. I already wrote in a mailing

Re: SCHED_ULE should not be the default

2011-12-13 Thread Mike Tancsa
On 12/13/2011 10:54 AM, Steve Kargl wrote: > > I have given the WHY in previous discussions of ULE, based > on what you call legacy benchmarks. I have not seen any > commit to sched_ule.c that would lead me to believe that > the performance issues with ULE and cpu-bound numerical > codes have bee

Re: SCHED_ULE should not be the default

2011-12-13 Thread Steve Kargl
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 02:23:46PM +0100, O. Hartmann wrote: > On 12/12/11 16:51, Steve Kargl wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 02:47:57PM +0100, 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

Re: SCHED_ULE should not be the default

2011-12-13 Thread O. Hartmann
On 12/12/11 16:51, Steve Kargl wrote: > On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 02:47:57PM +0100, 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

Re: SCHED_ULE should not be the default

2011-12-13 Thread Jeremy Chadwick
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 12:13:42PM +0100, O. Hartmann wrote: > On 12/12/11 16:13, Vincent Hoffman wrote: > > > > 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

Re: SCHED_ULE should not be the default

2011-12-13 Thread O. Hartmann
On 12/12/11 16:13, Vincent Hoffman wrote: > > 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

Re: SCHED_ULE should not be the default

2011-12-13 Thread Andrey Chernov
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 10:40:48AM +0200, Ivan Klymenko wrote: > > On 12/12/2011 05:47, O. Hartmann wrote: > > > Do we have any proof at hand for such cases where SCHED_ULE performs > > > much better than SCHED_4BSD? > > > > I complained about poor interactive performance of ULE in a desktop > > e

Re: SCHED_ULE should not be the default

2011-12-13 Thread Jeremy Chadwick
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 02:47:57PM +0100, 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

Re: SCHED_ULE should not be the default

2011-12-13 Thread Adrian Chadd
On 13 December 2011 01:00, Andrey Chernov wrote: >> If the algorithm ULE does not contain problems - it means the problem >> has Core2Duo, or in a piece of code that uses the ULE scheduler. > > I observe ULE interactivity slowness even on single core machine (Pentium > 4) in very visible places,

Re: Maximum blocksize for FFS?

2011-12-13 Thread Kostik Belousov
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 06:50:33PM -0500, Dieter BSD wrote: > Many recent disks have a 4KiB sector size, so newfs's default > 2KiB frag size seems suboptimal for these drives. Newfs's man > page states: "The optimal block:fragment ratio is 8:1. Other > ratios are possible, but are not recommended,

Re: SCHED_ULE should not be the default

2011-12-13 Thread Ivan Klymenko
> On 12/12/2011 05:47, O. Hartmann wrote: > > Do we have any proof at hand for such cases where SCHED_ULE performs > > much better than SCHED_4BSD? > > I complained about poor interactive performance of ULE in a desktop > environment for years. I had numerous people try to help, including > Jeff,