Re: ULE vs. 4BSD in RELENG_7
- From: "Josh Carroll" <josh.carroll@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 18:55:19 -0800
Josh, I had an interesting thought today. What if the reason 4BSD is
faster is because it distributes load more evenly across all packages
because it distributes randomly? ULE distributed across cores evenly but
not packages. Can you try the attached patch? This also turns the
default slice size down but does not contain the other context switch
performance improvements.
Hi Jeff,
here are the results:
ffmpeg: 1:38.885
sysbench: (4,8,12,16 threads respectively):
2221.93
2327.87
2292.49
2269.29
And buildworld: 13m47.052s
Much improved! :)
Josh
_______________________________________________
freebsd-performance@xxxxxxxxxxx mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx"
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: ULE vs. 4BSD in RELENG_7
- From: Josh Carroll
- Re: ULE vs. 4BSD in RELENG_7
- References:
- Re: ULE vs. 4BSD in RELENG_7
- From: Jeff Roberson
- Re: ULE vs. 4BSD in RELENG_7
- From: Josh Carroll
- Re: ULE vs. 4BSD in RELENG_7
- From: Jeff Roberson
- Re: ULE vs. 4BSD in RELENG_7
- From: Josh Carroll
- Re: ULE vs. 4BSD in RELENG_7
- From: Jeff Roberson
- Re: ULE vs. 4BSD in RELENG_7
- From: Josh Carroll
- Re: ULE vs. 4BSD in RELENG_7
- From: Jeff Roberson
- Re: ULE vs. 4BSD in RELENG_7
- From: Josh Carroll
- Re: ULE vs. 4BSD in RELENG_7
- From: Jeff Roberson
- Re: ULE vs. 4BSD in RELENG_7
- Prev by Date: Re: ULE vs. 4BSD in RELENG_7
- Next by Date: Re: ULE vs 4BSD in RELENG_7
- Previous by thread: Re: ULE vs. 4BSD in RELENG_7
- Next by thread: Re: ULE vs. 4BSD in RELENG_7
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|