Intel C2D COREs not used equally in FreeBSD 7.0-CURRENT i386

[Abdullah Ibn Hamad Al-Marri]

On 6/5/07, Attilio Rao <attilio at freebsd.org> wrote:
> Abdullah Ibn Hamad Al-Marri wrote:
> > On 6/5/07, youshi10 at u.washington.edu <youshi10 at u.washington.edu> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 4 Jun 2007, Abdullah Ibn Hamad Al-Marri wrote:
> >>
> >> > On 6/4/07, Alexey Tarasov <master at preved.cn> wrote:
> >> >> Hi.
> >> >>
> >> >>  > options         SCHED_4BSD              # 4BSD scheduler
> >> >>
> >> >> Try to use SCHED_ULE or SCHED_CORE.
> >> >>
> >> >> ::[ | | | | ]::
> >> >> Alexey Tarasov
> >> >> master at preved.cn
> >> >
> >> > I thought Davidxu removed SCHED_CORE for SCHED_ULE, am I missing
> >> something?
> >> > --
> >> > Regards,
> >> >
> >> > -Abdullah Ibn Hamad Al-Marri
> >> > Arab Portal
> >> > http://www.WeArab.Net/
> >>
> >> I think so. Try SCHED_ULE.
> >>
> >> -Garrett
> >
> > I'm using ULE now, and I see mysqld could use 104%in WCPU.
> >
> > But do you know why services still share the cpu0 instead of using CPU1
> >
> > PID USERNAME  THR PRI NICE   SIZE    RES STATE  C   TIME   WCPU COMMAND
> >  598 mysql      16  44    0   639M   633M ucond  0  50:53  4.83% mysqld
> >  740 services    3  44    0 54292K 51352K select 0   3:08  0.00% services
> >
> > I wish kernel can balance using both CORES with ULE 2.0
>
> ULE currently uses some tricks in order to avoid too many sched_lock
> acquisitions that pessimize in load balancing and in pick_pri case.
> In the night, I think Jeff is going to commit the infrastructure to let
> sched_lock back home and soon we will have ULE sched_lock free. It means
> that we could really have a good balancing and an effective usage of
> pick_pri for it.
>
> As saying: it is a known bug, and partially intentional...
>
> Attilio

Attilio,

Thanks for explaining the issue deeper.

So is fixing this issue would make FreeBSD runs apps faster than Linux
or we will get the same result that linux offers now?


-- 
Regards,

-Abdullah Ibn Hamad Al-Marri
Arab Portal
http://www.WeArab.Net/