On Dec 15, 2011, at 3:48 PM, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: […] > That said: thrown out, data ignored, done. > > Now what? Where are we? We're right back where we were a day or two > ago; meaning no closer to solving the dilemma reported by users and > SCHED_ULE. Heck, we're not even sure if there is an issue, other than > some folks confirming that SCHED_4BSD performs better for them (that's > what started this whole thread), and there are at least a couple which > have stated this.
But, are any of these benchmarks really engaging the 4BSD/ULE scheduler differences? Most such benchmarks are run on a system with no other load whatsoever and in no way represent real world experience. What is more, I believe in such benchmarks "the system feels sluggish" is not measured at all. Even if it is measured, if in such case the benchmark finishes "better" - that is, faster, or say, makes the system freeze for the user for the duration of the test -- it will be considered "win", because the benchmark suite ran faster on that particular system -- whereas a system which ran the benchmark fast, provided good interactive response etc would be considered "loser". I think it is not good idea to hijack this thread, but instead focusing on the other SCHED_ULE bashing thread to define an reasonable benchmark or a set of benchmarks rather -- so that many would run it and provide feedback. Daniel_______________________________________________ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
