Re: ULE and Prescott question
RW wrote: > On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 22:33:46 +0200 > Ivan Voras wrote: > >> Scott Bennett wrote: >>> This is a curiousity question. I'm running 7.2-STABLE at >>> present on an old Inspiron XPS, which has a 3.4 GHz P4 Prescott >>> CPU. I have hyperthreading enabled in the kernel. The question >>> is: is there any appreciable performance difference to be expected >>> with this hardware setup between the ULE scheduler and the 4BSD >>> scheduler? Or does the fact that there is only one core eliminate >>> any difference in performance characteristics? >> I'd guess the second thing. It's not like there's cache to be shared >> between cores, etc. > > But with hyperthreading enabled, don't you have virtual CPUs sharing > L1 cache Yes, > rather that cores sharing L2 cache, making the case for ULE > even stronger? If you're thinking about ULEs "soft-pinning" of processes to CPUs then I don't think so for two reasons: it's not like 4BSD forces processes ping-ponging everywhere - for 2 logical CPUs it's not that there's much choice of where to schedule a process - and thread switches between HTT logical CPUs is supposed to be cheap - I think since the L1 is shared, HTT cores have access to cached data from "the other" core for no cost. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: ULE and Prescott question
On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 22:33:46 +0200 Ivan Voras wrote: > Scott Bennett wrote: > > This is a curiousity question. I'm running 7.2-STABLE at > > present on an old Inspiron XPS, which has a 3.4 GHz P4 Prescott > > CPU. I have hyperthreading enabled in the kernel. The question > > is: is there any appreciable performance difference to be expected > > with this hardware setup between the ULE scheduler and the 4BSD > > scheduler? Or does the fact that there is only one core eliminate > > any difference in performance characteristics? > > I'd guess the second thing. It's not like there's cache to be shared > between cores, etc. But with hyperthreading enabled, don't you have virtual CPUs sharing L1 cache rather that cores sharing L2 cache, making the case for ULE even stronger? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ULE and Prescott question
Scott Bennett wrote: > This is a curiousity question. I'm running 7.2-STABLE at present on > an old Inspiron XPS, which has a 3.4 GHz P4 Prescott CPU. I have > hyperthreading enabled in the kernel. The question is: is there any > appreciable performance difference to be expected with this hardware setup > between the ULE scheduler and the 4BSD scheduler? Or does the fact that > there is only one core eliminate any difference in performance > characteristics? I'd guess the second thing. It's not like there's cache to be shared between cores, etc. ULE might still be better simply because it is more modern. Anyway, all recent (7.1+) versions of FreeBSD ship with ULE as default, and all FreeBSD versions < 7.0 have broken/unfinished ULE. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: ULE scheduler
On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 15:17:28 -0700, "Dave Stegner" wrote: > I rebuilt the kernel with ULE scheduler, I think. > > How can I tell if it is running ULE or 4BSD?? I think that's what you're looking for: % sysctl kern.sched.name kern.sched.name: ULE -- Polytropon >From Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ULE
in few days old RELENG_7 it's great, much better than anything before. there are something to fix with realtime priority threads scheduling, i contacted the author and i think it will be fixed soon. in case of usual work - just use it. it's very good. On Sat, 11 Oct 2008, Desmond Chapman wrote: Anyone with experience using and setting this up, please contact me. I need to learn how to work with and on it. _ Get more out of the Web. Learn 10 hidden secrets of Windows Live. http://windowslive.com/connect/post/jamiethomson.spaces.live.com-Blog-cns!550F681DAD532637!5295.entry?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_domore_092008___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: ULE
Desmond Chapman wrote: Anyone with experience using and setting this up, please contact me. I need to learn how to work with and on it. Replace "options SCHED_4BSD" with "options SCHED_ULE" in your kernel config file, compile/install kernel in the usual way, reboot. End of story. Kris ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: ULE Scheduler and overall performance on 6.x - Wow
Jonathan Horne wrote: i remember when i first started using freebsd about 2 months ago, the first kernel i built, i did the ULE (at some articles recommendataion). but, ive not done it since. i guess i have been noticing a bit of lag on my system (amd 1800mhz 512rdram, u160 scsi raid0), but nothing unacceptable. however, since i didnt have a problem with my first kernel that i did, and your positive response, i decided to go ahead and change out the specified scheduler in my kernconf, and let 'er rip. is your system a desktop? were your prevously running the same desktop configuration on the same box, with the 4BSD? is the ULE scheduler suited for a server setup as well (my server is also SMP), or is this something that should be kept to a desktop? thanks, jonathan horne My system is a "desktop" and yes I was previously using the 4BSD scheduler. As for whether it is suited for a server environment I would say that depends. From what I understand it is an experimental scheduler meant to bring better performance to SMP machines but that UP machines may also show some improvement. If I was using this box as a server for mission critical applications there are a whole bunch of things I am doing now that I would not be doing. Before I would use any relatively new configuration on a production server I would have to do some reliability testing and benchmarking on a test machine that I had configured to test a particular harware/application mix. I would also be reading what other people had to say and I would first choose to use something that was known to generally work and for which issues were generally know and mostly understood. Also, go where the support is. :) This is basically a test box and a learning platform. There are way too many applications loaded on this machine and they are far too varied in nature for me to single out one aspect of my configuration and say whether or not it is suitable in a server configuration. In addition I wouldn't be able to say whether ULE is suitable for a server after testing it on hardware that is definitely not suitable as a server, in my opinion. I am willing to say that for desktop use the ULE scheduler --seems-- to work great. But do keep in mind Mr. Kennaway's comments per this thread. Of course the 4BSD scheduler works great so I wouldn't switch unless I had a reason to. --Duane On Sunday 07 May 2006 04:43, Duane Whitty wrote: Hi, I decided to give the ULE scheduler a try a while ago (April 28). when I last built 6-STABLE Anyhow it seems great. I'm running a 2.4GHz Celeron with 512MB RAM and two 40GB, PATA disks. Right now I'm running both a GNOME and a KDE session, I've got Thunderbird and Evolution open, Firefox is running and running well, and I'm updating the my local copy of the FreeBSD repository. Oh yeah, I'm also running a DNS server, a Sendmail server, and SAMBA I can't believe how responsive everything is on this low-end machine I'm running.Wow! (And this with debugging turned on but no WITNESS or INVARIANTS turned on) Well time to rebuild the sources :) dwpc@ /home/duane>uname -a FreeBSD dwpc.dwlabs.ca 6.1-RC FreeBSD 6.1-RC #0: Fri Apr 28 18:41:15 ADT 2006 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/DWPC-KERNEL i386 Best Regards, Duane Whitty ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: ULE Scheduler and overall performance on 6.x - Wow
On Sun, May 07, 2006 at 06:43:14AM -0300, Duane Whitty wrote: > Hi, > > I decided to give the ULE scheduler a try a while ago (April 28). > when I last built 6-STABLE > > Anyhow it seems great. I'm running a 2.4GHz Celeron with > 512MB RAM and two 40GB, PATA disks. Right now I'm running > both a GNOME and a KDE session, I've got Thunderbird and > Evolution open, Firefox is running and running well, and I'm > updating the my local copy of the FreeBSD repository. Oh yeah, > I'm also running a DNS server, a Sendmail server, and SAMBA > I can't believe how responsive everything is on this low-end machine > I'm running.Wow! (And this with debugging turned on but no WITNESS > or INVARIANTS turned on) FYI, in my testing ULE is faster under light workloads but quite a lot slower under heavy loads. It's not recommended, but YMMV. Kris pgppGBKH0ZlRx.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: ULE Scheduler and overall performance on 6.x - Wow
i remember when i first started using freebsd about 2 months ago, the first kernel i built, i did the ULE (at some articles recommendataion). but, ive not done it since. i guess i have been noticing a bit of lag on my system (amd 1800mhz 512rdram, u160 scsi raid0), but nothing unacceptable. however, since i didnt have a problem with my first kernel that i did, and your positive response, i decided to go ahead and change out the specified scheduler in my kernconf, and let 'er rip. is your system a desktop? were your prevously running the same desktop configuration on the same box, with the 4BSD? is the ULE scheduler suited for a server setup as well (my server is also SMP), or is this something that should be kept to a desktop? thanks, jonathan horne On Sunday 07 May 2006 04:43, Duane Whitty wrote: > Hi, > > I decided to give the ULE scheduler a try a while ago (April 28). > when I last built 6-STABLE > > Anyhow it seems great. I'm running a 2.4GHz Celeron with > 512MB RAM and two 40GB, PATA disks. Right now I'm running > both a GNOME and a KDE session, I've got Thunderbird and > Evolution open, Firefox is running and running well, and I'm > updating the my local copy of the FreeBSD repository. Oh yeah, > I'm also running a DNS server, a Sendmail server, and SAMBA > I can't believe how responsive everything is on this low-end machine > I'm running.Wow! (And this with debugging turned on but no WITNESS > or INVARIANTS turned on) > > Well time to rebuild the sources :) > > dwpc@ /home/duane>uname -a > FreeBSD dwpc.dwlabs.ca 6.1-RC FreeBSD 6.1-RC #0: Fri Apr 28 18:41:15 ADT > 2006 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/DWPC-KERNEL i386 > > Best Regards, > > Duane Whitty ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: ULE or 4BSD
On Sat, Nov 05, 2005 at 01:42:40PM +0300, Andrew P. wrote: > On 11/5/05, Albert Shih <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi anybody > > > > All is in the subject...on FreeBSD 6.0 i've see the default generic kernel > > is compiled with SCHED_4BSD and SCHED_ULE is in comment. > > > > Can'I use SCHED_ULE on 6.0 ? Is he stable now ? > > > > Regards. > > -- > > Albert SHIH > > Universite de Paris 7 (Denis DIDEROT) > > U.F.R. de Mathematiques. > > Heure local/Local time: > > Sat Nov 5 10:05:36 CET 2005 > > ___ > > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > > > > Not yet, no, sorry. It's pretty stable now that 6.0 is > out, but you'll have to conduct extensive testing > (yourself) before you put it in production, where it > might give you a noticable performance boost. Or slowdown, as in my testing. Kris pgpi9XUhDtKvn.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: ULE or 4BSD
On 11/5/05, Albert Shih <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi anybody > > All is in the subject...on FreeBSD 6.0 i've see the default generic kernel > is compiled with SCHED_4BSD and SCHED_ULE is in comment. > > Can'I use SCHED_ULE on 6.0 ? Is he stable now ? > > Regards. > -- > Albert SHIH > Universite de Paris 7 (Denis DIDEROT) > U.F.R. de Mathematiques. > Heure local/Local time: > Sat Nov 5 10:05:36 CET 2005 > ___ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > Not yet, no, sorry. It's pretty stable now that 6.0 is out, but you'll have to conduct extensive testing (yourself) before you put it in production, where it might give you a noticable performance boost. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
