ULE vs. 4BSD scheduler benchmarks

[Florian Smeets]

On 29.01.12 10:50, O. Hartmann wrote:
> 
> We got a new workstation, two socket 6-core westmere XEON's, I forgot
> the specifications, but they're driven with 2,66 GHz each and have
> access to 96GB RAM. Maybe I can also setup some benchmarks, but I need
> advice since I'm not a kernel GURU.
> The box is prmarily running Linux due to the TESLA/GPGPU stuff we run on
> it. A colleague of mine developend a software for huge satellite imagery
> correction needed in planetary science, the software is highly scalable
> (OpenMP) and massively using OpenCL, but using OpenCL could be switched
> off. We are not interested in database performance, but more in HPC
> stuff and scientific calculations. I guess we could provode also some
> benchmark results after a proper setup for the workload. Since this box
> in question is also running a Linux Ubuntu 11.04 server, I would be
> interesting having a comparison to that.
> 

What you could do to help is you could give mav's latest ULE patches a
try with your workload and could measure stock ULE vs. the patched one.

http://people.freebsd.org/~mav/sched.htt40.patch

I have tested it on head, it does apply to 9-STABLE, but i haven't tried
to compile or run with it, but i think it should work.

Florian

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 163 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-performance/attachments/20120218/d79a4e7f/signature.pgp