Jeff Roberson wrote:
On Mon, 3 Nov 2003, Eirik Oeverby wrote:


Hi,

Just recompiled yesterday, running sched_ule.c 1.75. It seems to have
re-introduced the bogus mouse events I talked about earlier, after a
period of having no problems with it. The change happened between 1.69
and 1.75, and there's also the occational glitch in keyboard input.


How unfortunate, it seems to have fixed other problems.  Can you describe
the mouse problem?  Is it jittery constantly or only under load?  Or are
you having other problems?  Have you tried reverting to SCHED_4BSD?  What
window manager do you run?

The problem is two parts: The mouse tends to 'lock up' for brief moments when the system is under load, in particular during heavy UI operations or when doing compile jobs and such. The second part of the problem is related, and is manifested by the mouse actually making movements I never asked it to make. It's almost as if messages passed from the mouse (PS/2 type) through the kernel are being corrupted or lost - moving the mouse slowly in one direction will suddenly make it jump half across the screen and continue. Also it will quite often produce bogus clicks and drags, i.e. I'll be moving the mouse across the screen and suddenly it grabs something and doesn't let go - as if it got a MouseRightDown event but no MouseRightRelease event (or whatever they are called in the world you are in - I'm coming from OS/2 and other obscure platforms ;). The second problem usually follows the first - it's more likely to happen when the system is under some kind of load. Heavy window repainting/updating (Mozilla Thunderbird is a prime example, but other apps can be just as guilty), compile jobs, VMWare going crazy with the CPU, heavy disk/network I/O .. Anything that places load on the system/kernel can cause this.

Running with SCHED_4BSD completely solves these problems, and the bogus
mouse event problems did NOT appear with sched_ule 1.69 (which is the
last one I tried before 1.75). It did appear with ~1.50 and thereabouts
though (as reported earlier in this thread).

I'm currently running WindowMaker as window manager, but the problem
also exists in Gnome and xfce4. Gnome is more likely to exhibit the
problem even during low system loads, given that it's more violent UI-wise.

You are right though, the later sched_ule revisions DO seem to be better
in many other respects - overall performance 'feels' better (atleast in
console mode). The mouse issues makes X kinda hard to use though.
Btw you might be interested in knowing that the keyboard from time to
time shows what I think is bogus input aswell - I have a consistently
higher rate of failure when typing with sched_ule 1.75 than I had with
1.69, and it definitely feels as if keystrokes are getting lost or
repeated when they shouldn't be. Not often, had two or three
'suspicious' typos while writing this message, and I am reluctant to say
it's a definite kernel issue, because I'm nowhere near a perfect typist
- but it is nevertheless worth noting and might even be worth looking
into. Might there be a connection between this and the mouse issues?

Thanks,
/Eirik



Thanks for the report.


Cheers,
Jeff


If you need me to do anything to track this down, let me know. I am, and
have always been, running with moused, on a uniprocessor box (ThinkPad
T21 1ghz p3).

Best regards,
/Eirik

Jeff Roberson wrote:

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003, Bruno Van Den Bossche wrote:



Jeff Roberson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



On Wed, 29 Oct 2003, Jeff Roberson wrote:



On Thu, 30 Oct 2003, Bruce Evans wrote:



Test for scheduling buildworlds:

        cd /usr/src/usr.bin
        for i in obj depend all
        do
                MAKEOBJDIRPREFIX=/somewhere/obj time make -s -j16 $i
        done >/tmp/zqz 2>&1

(Run this with an empty /somewhere/obj.  The all stage doesn't
quite finish.)  On an ABIT BP6 system with a 400MHz and a 366MHz
CPU, with/usr (including /usr/src) nfs-mounted (with 100 Mbps
ethernet and a reasonably fast server) and /somewhere/obj
ufs1-mounted (on a fairly slow disk; no soft-updates), this
gives the following times:

SCHED_ULE-yesterday, with not so careful setup:
     40.37 real         8.26 user         6.26 sys
    278.90 real        59.35 user        41.32 sys
    341.82 real       307.38 user        69.01 sys
SCHED_ULE-today, run immediately after booting:
     41.51 real         7.97 user         6.42 sys
    306.64 real        59.66 user        40.68 sys
    346.48 real       305.54 user        69.97 sys
SCHED_4BSD-yesterday, with not so careful setup:
    [same as today except the depend step was 10 seconds
    slower (real)]
SCHED_4BSD-today, run immediately after booting:
     18.89 real         8.01 user         6.66 sys
    128.17 real        58.33 user        43.61 sys
    291.59 real       308.48 user        72.33 sys
SCHED_4BSD-yesterday, with a UP kernel (running on the 366 MHz
CPU) with
  many local changes and not so careful setup:
     17.39 real         8.28 user         5.49 sys
    130.51 real        60.97 user        34.63 sys
    390.68 real       310.78 user        60.55 sys

Summary: SCHED_ULE was more than twice as slow as SCHED_4BSD for
the obj and depend stages.  These stages have little
parallelism.  SCHED_ULE was only 19% slower for the all stage.
...

I reran this with -current (sched_ule.c 1.68, etc.). Result: no significant change. However, with a UP kernel there was no significant difference between the times for SCHED_ULE and SCHED_4BSD.

There was a significant difference on UP until last week. I'm working on SMP now. I have some patches but they aren't quite ready yet.

I have commited my SMP fixes. I would appreciate it if you could post update results. ULE now outperforms 4BSD in a single threaded kernel compile and performs almost identically in a 16 way make. I still have a few more things that I can do to improve the situation. I would expect ULE to pull further ahead in the months to come.

I recently had to complete a little piece of software in a course on parallel computing. I've put it online[1] (we only had to write the pract2.cpp file). It calculates the inverse of a Vandermonde matrix and allows you to spawn multiple slave-processes who each perform a part of the work. Everything happens in memory so I've used it lately to test the different changes you made to sched_ule.c and these last fixes do improve the performance on my dual p3 machine a lot.

Here are the results of my (very limited tests) :

sched4bsd
---
dimension       slaves          time
1000            1               90.925408
1000            2               58.897038

200             1               0.735962
200             2               0.676660

sched_ule 1.68
---
dimension       slaves          time
1000            1               90.951015
1000            2               70.402845

200             1               0.743551
200             2               1.900455

sched_ule 1.70
---
dimension       slaves          time
1000            1               90.782309
1000            2               57.207351

200             1               0.739998
200             2               0.383545


I'm not really sure if this is very relevant to you, but from the end-user point of view (me :-)) this does means something. Thanks!


I welcome the feedback, positive or negative, as it helps me improve
things.  Thanks for the report!  Could you run this again under 4bsd and
ULE with the following in your .cshrc:

set time= ( 5 "%Uu %Ss %E %P %X+%Dk %I+%Oio %Fpf+%Ww %cc/%ww" )

And then time ./testpract 200 2, etc.  This will give me a few hints about
what's impacting your performance.

Thanks!
Jeff



[1] <http://users.pandora.be/bomberboy/mptest/final.tar.bz2>
It can be used by running testpract2 with two arguments, the dimension
of the matrix and the number of slaves.  example './testpract2 200 2'
will create a matrix with dimension 200 and 2 slaves.


-- Bruno

... And then there's the guy who bought 20,000 bras, cut them in half,
and sold 40,000 yamalchas with chin straps....



_______________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"


_______________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"



_______________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"



_______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Reply via email to