cvs commit: src/sys/kern sched_ule.c
brde at optusnet.com.au
Mon Oct 1 00:37:47 PDT 2007
On Sun, 30 Sep 2007, Jeff Roberson wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Sep 2007, Kevin Oberman wrote:
>> YMMV, but ULE seems to generally work better then 4BSD for interactive
>> uniprocessor systems. The preferred scheduler for uniprocessor servers
>> is less clear, but many test have shown ULE does better for those
>> systems in the majority of cases.
> I feel it's safe to say desktop behavior on UP is definitely superior.
This is unsafe to say.
> think there is no significant difference on UP between 4BSD and ULE
This may be safe to say, but is inconsistent with the above.
> perhaps in context switching microbenchmarks where ULE falls behind.
It is safe to say that interactive users cannot notice insignificant
differences. It takes a micro-benchmark to notice possibly-significant
differences of hundreds or even thousands of nanonseconds for context
ULE may give higher priority to interactive processes, but most loss of
interactivity is caused by blocking on I/O, and there is nothing nothing
a scheduler can do to speed up slow or overloaded devices.
More information about the cvs-src