ULE vs. 4BSD in RELENG_7

Jeff Roberson jroberson at chesapeake.net
Fri Nov 2 12:00:48 PDT 2007

On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, Josh Carroll wrote:

>> I'm confident that we can improve things.  It will probably not make the
>> cut for 7.0 since it will be too disruptive.  I'm sure it can be
>> backported before 7.1 when ULE is likely to become the default.
> That sounds great! I figured it was something that would have to wait
> until 7.0 released. I completely understand that.
>> I hope that we can continue to work together to verify any fixes I may
>> come up with.
> Absolutely! Just let me know how I can help. If you need a guinea
> pig...er...tester :) I'll be glad to help!

Could you try spot checking a couple of tests with kern.sched.slice set to 
half its present value?  4BSD on average will use half the slice that ULE 
will by default.

> Another thing I noticed between ULE and 4BSD is my core temperatures
> seem erratic on ULE. I use RRDtool with the new coretemp(4) feature
> and noticed the temperatures are spiking a lot with ULE, and generally
> slightly higher than when running a 4BSD kernel. I don't know if
> that's significant or not. Just something I noticed when I modified my
> RRD scripts to use coretemp.
> For a side-by-side comparison, see this page:
> http://pflog.net/~floyd/fbsd_sched.html

This is interesting.  I have had a couple of laptop users report success 
in using lower power saving modes with ULE.  Are these core temp 
observations repeatable?


> Thanks again for all your help! Please let me know if/when I can do
> anything else to help out.
> Regards,
> Josh
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-performance at freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-performance-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"

More information about the freebsd-performance mailing list