cvs commit: src/sys/kern sched_ule.c

[Kevin Oberman]

> Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 23:25:08 -0400
> From: "Ben Kaduk" <minimarmot at gmail.com>
> Sender: owner-cvs-all at freebsd.org
> 
> On 9/29/07, Garance A Drosehn <gad at freebsd.org> wrote:
> > At 4:39 PM +0000 9/27/07, Jeff Roberson wrote:
> > >
> > >   Modified files:
> > >     sys/kern             sched_ule.c
> > >   Log:
> > >    - ...
> > >    - Assert that we're not trying to compile ULE on an unsupported
> > >      architecture.  To date, I believe only i386 and amd64 have
> > >      implemented the third cpu switch argument required.
> > >
> > >   Approved by:    re
> >
> > Does this mean that I should not switch to ULE on my single-CPU PowerPC
> > mini-Mac?
> >
> 
> I was under the impression that BSD is preferred to ULE for single-processor
> systems, irregardless of the processor architecture.

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.

While I believe the plan is that 4BSD be in GENERIC in 7.0, but I
suspect ULE (which may still need optimizing to do in a few areas) will
soon be the standard scheduler for all 386 and amd64 systems. 

Jeff has done quite a job on ULE.
-- 
R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer
Energy Sciences Network (ESnet)
Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab)
E-mail: oberman at es.net			Phone: +1 510 486-8634
Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4  EADA 927D EBB3 987B 3751
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 224 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-src/attachments/20070930/b6bec915/attachment.pgp