On Sat, 29 Sep 2007, Kevin Oberman wrote:
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.
I feel it's safe to say desktop behavior on UP is definitely superior. I
think there is no significant difference on UP between 4BSD and ULE except
perhaps in context switching microbenchmarks where ULE falls behind.
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.
I'm not sure if the plan is settled yet, however you're probably right.
Jeff has done quite a job on ULE.
Thanks,
Jeff
--
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
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
