kern/85820: 1.5 times slower performance with SCHED_ULE than SCHED_4BSD

[Ceri Davies]

On Sun, Oct 08, 2006 at 07:51:41PM +0200, O. Hartmann wrote:
> Ceri Davies wrote:
> > Synopsis: 1.5 times slower performance with SCHED_ULE than SCHED_4BSD
> >
> > State-Changed-From-To: open->closed
> > State-Changed-By: ceri
> > State-Changed-When: Sun Oct 8 17:19:36 UTC 2006
> > State-Changed-Why: 
> > ULE is no longer the default scheduler, and no longer has a maintainer.
> > This is an interesting test case though.
> >
> >
> > Responsible-Changed-From-To: freebsd-amd64->freebsd-bugs
> > Responsible-Changed-By: ceri
> > Responsible-Changed-When: Sun Oct 8 17:19:36 UTC 2006
> > Responsible-Changed-Why: 
> > Scheduler problem.
> >
> > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=85820
> > _______________________________________________
> > freebsd-amd64 at freebsd.org mailing list
> > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-amd64
> > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-amd64-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
> >   
> Very interesting to read. And this is now the end of the newly
> introduced allround weapon for more scalability?

There is some one working on SCHED_ULE, but they are not a committer and
they suggested that this PR could be closed.  It contains an interesting
test case but no real problem as such, only that one scheduler is slower
that the other for certain loads.  That is always going to be true.

Ceri
-- 
That must be wonderful!  I don't understand it at all.
                                                  -- Moliere
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-amd64/attachments/20061008/4a76c9e6/attachment.pgp