> Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 23:25:08 -0400 > From: "Ben Kaduk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > On 9/29/07, Garance A Drosehn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > At 4:39 PM +0000 9/27/07, Jeff Roberson wrote: > > > > > > Modified files: > > > sys/kern sched_ule.c > > > Log: > > > - ... > > > - Assert that we're not trying to compile ULE on an unsupported > > > architecture. To date, I believe only i386 and amd64 have > > > implemented the third cpu switch argument required. > > > > > > Approved by: re > > > > Does this mean that I should not switch to ULE on my single-CPU PowerPC > > mini-Mac? > > > > I was under the impression that BSD is preferred to ULE for single-processor > systems, irregardless of the processor architecture.
YMMV, but ULE seems to generally work better then 4BSD for interactive uniprocessor systems. The preferred scheduler for uniprocessor servers is less clear, but many test have shown ULE does better for those systems in the majority of cases. While I believe the plan is that 4BSD be in GENERIC in 7.0, but I suspect ULE (which may still need optimizing to do in a few areas) will soon be the standard scheduler for all 386 and amd64 systems. Jeff has done quite a job on ULE. -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: +1 510 486-8634 Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4 EADA 927D EBB3 987B 3751
pgp501pGTu7uf.pgp
Description: PGP signature
