SCHED_ULE should not be the default

[Steve Kargl]

On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 02:49:51PM -0800, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> On 23 December 2011 11:11, Steve Kargl <sgk at troutmask.apl.washington.edu> wrote:
> 
> > One difference between the 2008 tests and today tests is
> > the number of available cpus. ?In 2008, I ran the tests
> > on a node with 8 cpus, while today's test used only a
> > node with only 4 cpus. ?If this behavior is a scaling
> > issue, I can't currently test it. ?But, today's tests
> > are certainly encouraging.
> 
> Do you not have access to anything with 8 CPUs in it? It'd be nice to
> get clarification that this indeed was fixed.

I have a few nodes with 8 cpus, but those are running 4BSD
kernels.  I try to keep my kernel and world sync, and by
extension the kernel/world on each node is in sync with
all other nodes.  So, while I took the 4 cpu node off-line
and updated it, at the moment I can't take another node
off-line unless I do an update across the entire cluster.
The update is planned for next year.

> Does ULE care (much) if the nodes are hyperthreading or real cores?
> Would that play a part in what it tries to schedule/spread?

I only have opteron processors in the cluster, if you're referring
to Intel's hypertheading technology, I can't look into ULE's
behavior with HTT.  

-- 
Steve