My rule is "break it any way you can and see if you can figure out why."
Don't be discouraged. You may find some of the folk at yahoo are interested.
Adrian
On 24 December 2011 03:00, Daniel Kalchev wrote:
>
> On Dec 24, 2011, at 12:49 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>
>> Do you not have access to any
Am 24.12.2011 00:02, schrieb Andriy Gapon:
> on 24/12/2011 00:49 Adrian Chadd said the following:
>> Does ULE care (much) if the nodes are hyperthreading or real cores?
>> Would that play a part in what it tries to schedule/spread?
>
> An answer to this part from the theory.
> ULE does care about
On Dec 24, 2011, at 12:49 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> Do you not have access to anything with 8 CPUs in it? It'd be nice to
> get clarification that this indeed was fixed.
I offered to do tests on 4x8 core Opteron system (32 cores total), but was
discouraged that contention would be too much and
On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 02:49:51PM -0800, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> On 23 December 2011 11:11, Steve Kargl
> wrote:
>
> > One difference between the 2008 tests and today tests is
> > the number of available cpus. ?In 2008, I ran the tests
> > on a node with 8 cpus, while today's test used only a
> >
on 24/12/2011 00:49 Adrian Chadd said the following:
> Does ULE care (much) if the nodes are hyperthreading or real cores?
> Would that play a part in what it tries to schedule/spread?
An answer to this part from the theory.
ULE does care about physical topology of the (logical) CPUs.
So, for exam
On 23 December 2011 11:11, Steve Kargl
wrote:
> Ah, so goods news! I cannot reproduce this problem that
> I saw 3+ years ago on the 4-cpu node, which is currently
> running a ULE kernel. When I killed the (N+1)th job,
> the N remaining jobs are spread across the N cpus.
Ah, good.
> One diffe
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 04:23:29PM -0800, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> On 22 December 2011 11:47, Steve Kargl
> wrote:
>
> > There is the additional observation in one of my 2008
> > emails (URLs have been posted) that if you have N+1
> > cpu-bound jobs with, say, job0 and job1 ping-ponging
> > on cpu0
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 04:23:29PM -0800, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> On 22 December 2011 11:47, Steve Kargl
> wrote:
>
> > There is the additional observation in one of my 2008
> > emails (URLs have been posted) that if you have N+1
> > cpu-bound jobs with, say, job0 and job1 ping-ponging
> > on cpu0
On 12/22/2011 16:23, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> You've done something
> that noone else has actually done - provided actual results from
> real-life testing, rather than a hundred posts of "I remember seeing
> X, so I don't use ULE."
Not to take away from Steve's excellent work on this, but I actually
On 22 December 2011 11:47, Steve Kargl
wrote:
[snip]
Thankyou for posting some actual measurements!
> There is the additional observation in one of my 2008
> emails (URLs have been posted) that if you have N+1
> cpu-bound jobs with, say, job0 and job1 ping-ponging
> on cpu0 (due to ULE's cpu-a
on 22/12/2011 21:47 Steve Kargl said the following:
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 09:01:15PM +0200, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>> on 22/12/2011 20:45 Steve Kargl said the following:
>>> I've used schedgraph to look at the ktrdump output. A jpg is
>>> available at http://troutmask.apl.washington.edu/~kargl/fr
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 09:01:15PM +0200, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> on 22/12/2011 20:45 Steve Kargl said the following:
> > I've used schedgraph to look at the ktrdump output. A jpg is
> > available at http://troutmask.apl.washington.edu/~kargl/freebsd/ktr.jpg
> > This shows the ping-pong effect where
on 22/12/2011 20:45 Steve Kargl said the following:
> I've used schedgraph to look at the ktrdump output. A jpg is
> available at http://troutmask.apl.washington.edu/~kargl/freebsd/ktr.jpg
> This shows the ping-pong effect where here 3 processes appear to be
> using 2 cpus while the remaining 2 pr
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 11:31:45AM +0100, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 04:52:50PM -0800, Steve Kargl wrote:
> >
> > I have placed several files at
> >
> > http://troutmask.apl.washington.edu/~kargl/freebsd
> >
> > dmesg.txt --> dmesg for ULE kernel
> > summary--> A s
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 11:31:45AM +0100, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 04:52:50PM -0800, Steve Kargl wrote:
>>
>> I have placed several files at
>>
>> http://troutmask.apl.washington.edu/~kargl/freebsd
>>
>> dmesg.txt --> dmesg for ULE kernel
>> summary--> A summary
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 05:25:51PM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
> If someone else thinks he has a specific problem that is not
> characterized by one of the cases above please let me know and I will
> put this in the chart.
It seems I stumbled over another thing.
Setup: 2 Servers providing devices b
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 01:07:58AM -0800, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> Are you able to go through the emails here and grab out Attilio's
> example for generating KTR scheduler traces?
>
Did your read this part of my email?
> >
> > Attilio,
> >
> > I have placed several files at
> >
> > http://troutmask
On 12/22/11 04:07, Adrian Chadd wrote:
Are you able to go through the emails here and grab out Attilio's
example for generating KTR scheduler traces?
Adrian
[...]
I've put up two such files:
http://www.m5p.com/~george/ktr-ule-problem.out
http://www.m5p.com/~george/ktr-ule-interact.out
but I do
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 04:52:50PM -0800, Steve Kargl wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 12:14:24PM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
> > 2011/12/15 Steve Kargl :
> > > On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 05:25:51PM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I basically went through all the e-mail you just sent and identif
Are you able to go through the emails here and grab out Attilio's
example for generating KTR scheduler traces?
Adrian
On 21 December 2011 16:52, Steve Kargl
wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 12:14:24PM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
>> 2011/12/15 Steve Kargl :
>> > On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 05:25:51PM
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 12:14:24PM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
> 2011/12/15 Steve Kargl :
> > On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 05:25:51PM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
> >>
> >> I basically went through all the e-mail you just sent and identified 4
> >> real report on which we could work on and summarizied in the
On Mon Dec 19 11, Nathan Whitehorn wrote:
> On 12/18/11 04:34, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> >The trouble is that there's lots of anecdotal evidence, but noone's
> >really gone digging deep into _their_ example of why it's broken. The
> >developers who know this stuff don't see anything wrong. That hints t
on 19/12/2011 19:46 Ivan Klymenko said the following:
> В Sat, 17 Dec 2011 23:13:16 +0200
> Andriy Gapon пишет:
>
>> on 17/12/2011 19:33 George Mitchell said the following:
>>> Summing up for the record, in my original test:
>>> 1. It doesn't matter whether X is running or not.
>>> 2. The problem
В Sat, 17 Dec 2011 23:13:16 +0200
Andriy Gapon пишет:
> on 17/12/2011 19:33 George Mitchell said the following:
> > Summing up for the record, in my original test:
> > 1. It doesn't matter whether X is running or not.
> > 2. The problem is not limited to two or fewer CPUs. (It also
> > happens f
The trouble is that there's lots of anecdotal evidence, but noone's
really gone digging deep into _their_ example of why it's broken. The
developers who know this stuff don't see anything wrong. That hints to
me it may be something a little more creepy - as an example, the
interplay between netisr/
Hi,
What Attilllo and others need are KTR traces in the most stripped down
example of interactive-busting workload you can find.
Eg: if you're doing 32 concurrent buildworlds and trying to test
interactivity - fine, but that's going to result in a lot of KTR
stuff.
If you can reproduce it using a
On 12/18/11 03:37, Bruce Cran wrote:
> On 13/12/2011 09:00, Andrey Chernov wrote:
>> I observe ULE interactivity slowness even on single core machine
>> (Pentium 4) in very visible places, like 'ps ax' output stucks in the
>> middle by ~1 second. When I switch back to SHED_4BSD, all slowness is
>>
On Sun Dec 18 11, Alexander Best wrote:
> On Sun Dec 18 11, Andrey Chernov wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 05:51:47PM +1100, Ian Smith wrote:
> > > On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 02:37:52 +, Bruce Cran wrote:
> > > > On 13/12/2011 09:00, Andrey Chernov wrote:
> > > > > I observe ULE interactivity slo
On Sun Dec 18 11, Andrey Chernov wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 05:51:47PM +1100, Ian Smith wrote:
> > On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 02:37:52 +, Bruce Cran wrote:
> > > On 13/12/2011 09:00, Andrey Chernov wrote:
> > > > I observe ULE interactivity slowness even on single core machine
> > (Pentium
>
On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 05:51:47PM +1100, Ian Smith wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 02:37:52 +, Bruce Cran wrote:
> > On 13/12/2011 09:00, Andrey Chernov wrote:
> > > I observe ULE interactivity slowness even on single core machine (Pentium
> > > 4) in very visible places, like 'ps ax' output s
On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 02:37:52 +, Bruce Cran wrote:
> On 13/12/2011 09:00, Andrey Chernov wrote:
> > I observe ULE interactivity slowness even on single core machine (Pentium
> > 4) in very visible places, like 'ps ax' output stucks in the middle by ~1
> > second. When I switch back to SHED_4
On 17 December 2011 14:00, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> on 17/12/2011 23:20 Adrian Chadd said the following:
>> This may -not- be a userland specific problem..
> That's an interesting idea. From the recent discussion about USB I can
> conclude
> that USB threads run at higher priority than GEOM thread
On 13/12/2011 09:00, Andrey Chernov wrote:
I observe ULE interactivity slowness even on single core machine
(Pentium 4) in very visible places, like 'ps ax' output stucks in the
middle by ~1 second. When I switch back to SHED_4BSD, all slowness is
gone.
I'm also seeing problems with ULE on a
on 17/12/2011 23:20 Adrian Chadd said the following:
> Erm, just as a random question - since device drivers (and GEOM) run
> as separate threads, has anyone looked into what kind of effects the
> scheduler has on these?
>
> I definitely have measurable throughput/responsiveness differences
> betw
Erm, just as a random question - since device drivers (and GEOM) run
as separate threads, has anyone looked into what kind of effects the
scheduler has on these?
I definitely have measurable throughput/responsiveness differences
between ULE and 4BSD (and preempt/non-preempt on 4BSD) on my MIPS
boa
on 17/12/2011 19:33 George Mitchell said the following:
> Summing up for the record, in my original test:
> 1. It doesn't matter whether X is running or not.
> 2. The problem is not limited to two or fewer CPUs. (It also happens
>for me on a six-CPU system.)
> 3. It doesn't require nCPU + 1 co
On 12/14/11 21:05, Oliver Pinter wrote:
[...]
Hi!
Can you try with this settings:
op@opn ~> sysctl kern.sched.
kern.sched.cpusetsize: 8
kern.sched.preemption: 0
kern.sched.name: ULE
kern.sched.slice: 13
kern.sched.interact: 30
kern.sched.preempt_thresh: 224
kern.sched.static_boost: 152
kern.sc
On 12/16/2011 14:59, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> It really looks much easier than i thought initially.
Awesome!
--
[^L]
Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS.
Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 01:51:26PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 12/16/2011 13:40, Michel Talon wrote:
> > Adrian Chadd said:
> >
> >
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> Can someone load a kernel module dynamically at boot-time?
> >>
> >> Ie, instead of compiling it in, can 4bsd/ule be loaded as a KLD at
On 12/16/2011 14:16, Michel Talon wrote:
> Of course, you are perfectly right., and i had misunderstood Adrian's
> post.
Happens to the best of us. :)
> But if the problem is only to change scheduler by rebooting, i think
> it is no more expensive to compile a kernel with the other scheduler.
>
Le 16 déc. 2011 à 22:51, Doug Barton a écrit :
> On 12/16/2011 13:40, Michel Talon wrote:
>> Adrian Chadd said:
>>
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Can someone load a kernel module dynamically at boot-time?
>>>
>>> Ie, instead of compiling it in, can 4bsd/ule be loaded as a KLD at
>>> boot-time, so th
On 12/16/2011 13:40, Michel Talon wrote:
> Adrian Chadd said:
>
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Can someone load a kernel module dynamically at boot-time?
>>
>> Ie, instead of compiling it in, can 4bsd/ule be loaded as a KLD at
>> boot-time, so the user can just change by rebooting?
>>
>> That may be an a
Adrian Chadd said:
> Hi all,
>
> Can someone load a kernel module dynamically at boot-time?
>
> Ie, instead of compiling it in, can 4bsd/ule be loaded as a KLD at
> boot-time, so the user can just change by rebooting?
>
> That may be an acceptable solution for now.
As Luigi explained, the pro
On 12/16/2011 12:53, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Can someone load a kernel module dynamically at boot-time?
>
> Ie, instead of compiling it in, can 4bsd/ule be loaded as a KLD at
> boot-time, so the user can just change by rebooting?
>
> That may be an acceptable solution for now.
That, o
Hi all,
Can someone load a kernel module dynamically at boot-time?
Ie, instead of compiling it in, can 4bsd/ule be loaded as a KLD at
boot-time, so the user can just change by rebooting?
That may be an acceptable solution for now.
Adrian
___
freebsd-
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 11:46:35AM +0100, Stefan Esser wrote:
> Am 16.12.2011 09:11, schrieb Luigi Rizzo:
> > The interesting part is probably the definition of the methods that
> > schedulers should implement (see struct _sched_interface ).
> >
> > The switch from one scheduler to another was imp
2011/12/15 Steve Kargl :
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 05:25:51PM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
>>
>> I basically went through all the e-mail you just sent and identified 4
>> real report on which we could work on and summarizied in the attached
>> Excel file.
>> I'd like that George, Steve, Doug, Andrey a
Am 16.12.2011 09:11, schrieb Luigi Rizzo:
> The interesting part is probably the definition of the methods that
> schedulers should implement (see struct _sched_interface ).
>
> The switch from one scheduler to another was implemented with a
> sysctl. This calls the sched_move() method of the curr
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 03:11:43AM +0100, C. P. Ghost wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 10:44 AM, Tom Evans wrote:
> > Real time scheduler changing would be insane! I was thinking that
> > both/any/all schedulers could be compiled into the kernel, and the
> > choice of which one to use becomes a bo
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 10:44 AM, Tom Evans wrote:
> Real time scheduler changing would be insane! I was thinking that
> both/any/all schedulers could be compiled into the kernel, and the
> choice of which one to use becomes a boot time configuration. You
> don't have to recompile the kernel to ch
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 05:25:51PM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
>
> I basically went through all the e-mail you just sent and identified 4
> real report on which we could work on and summarizied in the attached
> Excel file.
> I'd like that George, Steve, Doug, Andrey and Mike possibly review the
> f
2011/12/15 Mike Tancsa :
> On 12/15/2011 11:56 AM, Attilio Rao wrote:
>> So, as very first thing, can you try the following:
>> - Same codebase, etc. etc.
>> - Make the test 4 times, discard the first and ministat for the other 3
>> - Reboot
>> - Change the steal_thresh value
>> - Make the test 4 t
On 12/15/2011 11:56 AM, Attilio Rao wrote:
> So, as very first thing, can you try the following:
> - Same codebase, etc. etc.
> - Make the test 4 times, discard the first and ministat for the other 3
> - Reboot
> - Change the steal_thresh value
> - Make the test 4 times, discard the first and minis
В Thu, 15 Dec 2011 20:02:44 +0100
Attilio Rao пишет:
> 2011/12/15 Jeremy Chadwick :
> > On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 05:26:27PM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
> >> 2011/12/13 Jeremy Chadwick :
> >> > On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 02:47:57PM +0100, O. Hartmann wrote:
> >> >> > Not fully right, boinc defaults to r
2011/12/15 Jeremy Chadwick :
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 05:26:27PM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
>> 2011/12/13 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 ar
Am 12/15/11 15:20, schrieb Steven Hartland:
> With all the discussion I thought I'd give a buildworld
> benchmark a go here on a spare 24 core machine. ULE
> tested fine but with 4BSD it wont even boot panicing
> with the following:-
> http://screensnapr.com/v/hwysGV.png
>
> This is on a clean 8.2
On Dec 15, 2011, at 6:26 PM, Attilio Rao wrote:
> 2011/12/13 Daniel Kalchev :
>>
>>
>> On 13.12.11 09:36, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
>>>
>>> I personally would find it interesting if someone with a higher-end system
>>> (e.g. 2 physical CPUs, with 6 or 8 cores per CPU) was to do the same test
>>>
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 05:26:27PM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
> 2011/12/13 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
On 15/12/2011 14:20, Steven Hartland wrote:
So for this use ULE vs 4BSD is neither here-nor-there
but 9.0 buildworld is very slow (x2 slower) compared
with 8.2 so whats a bigger question in my mind.
clang is new in 9.0 and takes a long time to build.
--
Bruce Cran
_
2011/12/15 Mike Tancsa :
> On 12/15/2011 11:42 AM, Attilio Rao wrote:
>>
>> I'm thinking now to a better test-case for this: can you try that on a
>> tmpfs volume?
>
> There is enough RAM in the box so that it should not touch the disk, and
> I was sending the output to /dev/null, so it was not wri
On 12/15/2011 11:42 AM, Attilio Rao wrote:
>
> I'm thinking now to a better test-case for this: can you try that on a
> tmpfs volume?
There is enough RAM in the box so that it should not touch the disk, and
I was sending the output to /dev/null, so it was not writing to the disk.
>
> Also what
2011/12/15 Mike Tancsa :
> On 12/15/2011 11:26 AM, Attilio Rao wrote:
>>
>> Hi Mike,
>> was that just the same codebase with the switch SCHED_4BSD/SCHED_ULE?
>
> Hi Attilio,
> It was the same codebase.
>
>
>> Could you retry the bench checking CPU usage and possible thread
>> migration aroun
On 12/15/2011 11:26 AM, Attilio Rao wrote:
>
> Hi Mike,
> was that just the same codebase with the switch SCHED_4BSD/SCHED_ULE?
Hi Attilio,
It was the same codebase.
> Could you retry the bench checking CPU usage and possible thread
> migration around for both cases?
I can, but how do
2011/12/13 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
2011/12/13 Daniel Kalchev :
>
>
> On 13.12.11 09:36, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
>>
>> I personally would find it interesting if someone with a higher-end system
>> (e.g. 2 physical CPUs, with 6 or 8 cores per CPU) was to do the same test
>> (changing -jX to -j{numofcores} of course).
>
>
> Is 4 way 8 c
2011/12/14 Mike Tancsa :
> On 12/13/2011 7:01 PM, m...@freebsd.org wrote:
>>
>> Has anyone experiencing problems tried to set sysctl
>> kern.sched.steal_thresh=1 ?
>>
>> I don't remember what our specific problem at $WORK was, perhaps it
>> was just interrupt threads not getting serviced fast enou
2011/12/9 George Mitchell :
> dnetc is an open-source program from http://www.distributed.net/. It
> tries a brute-force approach to cracking RC4 puzzles and also computes
> optimal Golomb rulers. It starts up one process per CPU and runs at
> nice 20 and is, for all intents and purposes, 100% co
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 10:32 AM, Steven Hartland
wrote:
> Lars Engels wrote:
>>
>> 9.0 ships with gcc and clang which both need to be compiled, 8.2 only
>> has gcc.
>
>
> Ahh, any reason we need both, and is it possible to disable clang?
man src.conf
add WITHOUT_CLANG=yes to /etc/src.conf
--
Ei
Lars Engels wrote:
9.0 ships with gcc and clang which both need to be compiled, 8.2 only
has gcc.
Ahh, any reason we need both, and is it possible to disable clang?
Regards
Steve
This e.mail is private and confidential between Multiplay (
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 02:20:04PM -, Steven Hartland wrote:
> With all the discussion I thought I'd give a buildworld
> benchmark a go here on a spare 24 core machine. ULE
> tested fine but with 4BSD it wont even boot panicing
> with the following:-
> http://screensnapr.com/v/hwysGV.png
>
> T
With all the discussion I thought I'd give a buildworld
benchmark a go here on a spare 24 core machine. ULE
tested fine but with 4BSD it wont even boot panicing
with the following:-
http://screensnapr.com/v/hwysGV.png
This is on a clean 8.2-RELEASE-p4
Upgrading to RELENG_9 fixed this but its a b
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 12:42 AM, Jeremy Chadwick
wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 12:39:50AM +0100, O. Hartmann wrote:
>> On 12/14/11 18:54, Tom Evans wrote:
>> > I believe the correct thing to do is to put some extra documentation
>> > into the handbook about scheduler choice, noting the potenti
On 15/12/2011 00:42, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> It is already easy to switch schedulers. You change the option in your
> kernel config, rebuild kernel (world isn't necessary as long as you
> haven't csup'd between your last rebuild and now), make installkernel,
> shutdown -r now, done.
>
> If what
Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> It is already easy to switch schedulers. You change the
> option in your kernel config, rebuild kernel (world isn't
> necessary as long as you haven't csup'd between your last
> rebuild and now), make installkernel, shutdown -r now,
> done.
and you have thereby shot fre
В Thu, 15 Dec 2011 03:05:12 +0100
Oliver Pinter пишет:
> On 12/15/11, O. Hartmann wrote:
> > On 12/14/11 18:54, Tom Evans wrote:
> >> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 11:06 AM, George Mitchell
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Dear Secret Masters of FreeBSD: Can we have a decision on whether
> >>> to change back
On 15.12.11 01:39, O. Hartmann wrote:
On 12/14/11 18:54, Tom Evans wrote:
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 11:06 AM, George Mitchell
wrote:
Dear Secret Masters of FreeBSD: Can we have a decision on whether to
change back to SCHED_4BSD while SCHED_ULE gets properly fixed?
Please do not do this. Thi
On 12/15/11, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 03:05:12AM +0100, Oliver Pinter wrote:
>> On 12/15/11, O. Hartmann wrote:
>> > On 12/14/11 18:54, Tom Evans wrote:
>> >> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 11:06 AM, George Mitchell
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Dear Secret Masters of FreeBSD: Can
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 03:05:12AM +0100, Oliver Pinter wrote:
> On 12/15/11, O. Hartmann wrote:
> > On 12/14/11 18:54, Tom Evans wrote:
> >> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 11:06 AM, George Mitchell
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Dear Secret Masters of FreeBSD: Can we have a decision on whether to
> >>> change
On 12/15/11, O. Hartmann wrote:
> On 12/14/11 18:54, Tom Evans wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 11:06 AM, George Mitchell
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear Secret Masters of FreeBSD: Can we have a decision on whether to
>>> change back to SCHED_4BSD while SCHED_ULE gets properly fixed?
>>>
>>
>> Please do
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 12:39:50AM +0100, O. Hartmann wrote:
> On 12/14/11 18:54, Tom Evans wrote:
> > On the other hand, we have very many benchmarks showing how poorly
> > 4BSD scales on things like postgresql. We get much more load out of
> > our 8.1 ULE DB and web servers than we do out of our
On 12/14/11 12:54, Tom Evans wrote:
[...] This thread has shown that ULE performs poorly
in very specific scenarios where the server is loaded with NCPU+1 CPU
bound processes, [...]
Minor correction: Problem occurs when there are nCPU compute-bound
processes, not nCPU + 1.
On 12/14/11 18:54, Tom Evans wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 11:06 AM, George Mitchell
> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Secret Masters of FreeBSD: Can we have a decision on whether to
>> change back to SCHED_4BSD while SCHED_ULE gets properly fixed?
>>
>
> Please do not do this. This thread has shown that UL
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 05:54:15PM +, Tom Evans wrote:
> brought forward more complaints about interactivity in X (I've never
> noticed this, and use a FreeBSD desktop daily).
.. that was me, but I forgot to add that it almost never happens, and it
can only be triggered when there are processe
I'm not on the Release Engineering Team, and in fact don't have a src
commit bit ... but this close to a major release, no, it's too late to
change the default.
mcl
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/fre
В Wed, 14 Dec 2011 21:34:35 +0400
Andrey Chernov пишет:
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 02:22:48AM -0800, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> > 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 cod
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 11:06 AM, George Mitchell
wrote:
>
> Dear Secret Masters of FreeBSD: Can we have a decision on whether to
> change back to SCHED_4BSD while SCHED_ULE gets properly fixed?
>
Please do not do this. This thread has shown that ULE performs poorly
in very specific scenarios whe
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 02:22:48AM -0800, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> 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 s
On 12/13/2011 7:01 PM, m...@freebsd.org wrote:
>
> Has anyone experiencing problems tried to set sysctl
> kern.sched.steal_thresh=1 ?
>
> I don't remember what our specific problem at $WORK was, perhaps it
> was just interrupt threads not getting serviced fast enough, but we've
> hard-coded this
On 12/09/11 19:57, George Mitchell wrote:
On 12/09/11 10:17, Attilio Rao wrote:
[...]
More precisely I'd be interested in KTR traces.
To be even more precise:
With a completely stable GENERIC configuration (or otherwise please
post your kernel config) please add the following:
options KTR
option
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
On 12/13/11 18:02, Marcus Reid wrote:
[...]
The issues that I've seen with ULE on the desktop seem to be caused by X
taking up a steady amount of CPU, and being demoted from being an
"interactive" process. X then becomes the bottleneck for other
processes that would otherwise be "interactive".
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
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 problems - it means the
>> > problem has Core2Duo, or in a piece of cod
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
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
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 poor interactive performance of ULE in a desktop
> environment for
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 list that specifically in my case (Core2Duo)
> partially helps the
On 12/13/2011 13:31, Malin Randstrom wrote:
> stop sending me spam mail ... you never stop despite me having unsubscribeb
> several times. stop this!
If you had actually unsubscribed, the mail would have stopped. :)
You can see the instructions you need to follow below.
> ___
stop sending me spam mail ... you never stop despite me having unsubscribeb
several times. stop this!
On Dec 13, 2011 8:12 PM, "Steve Kargl"
wrote:
> 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 +01
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
1 - 100 of 142 matches
Mail list logo
