[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070309230612.GL10394@waste.org>
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 17:06:13 -0600
From: Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>
To: Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org>
Cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.21-rc3-mm1 RSDL results
On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 10:02:37AM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Saturday 10 March 2007 09:29, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 09:18:05AM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > On Saturday 10 March 2007 08:57, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > > On Saturday 10 March 2007 08:39, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > > > > So what's different between makes in parallel and make -j 5? Make's
> > > > > job server uses pipe I/O to control how many jobs are running.
> > > >
> > > > Hmm it must be those deep pipes again then. I removed any quirks
> > > > testing for those from mainline as I suspected it would be ok. Guess
> > > > I"m wrong.
> > >
> > > I shouldn't blame this straight up though if NO_HZ makes it better.
> > > Something else is going wrong... wtf though?
> >
> > Just so we're clear, dynticks has only 'fixed' the single non-parallel
> > make load so far.
>
> Ok, back to the pipe idea. Without needing a kernel recompile, can you try
> running the make -j5 as a SCHED_BATCH task?
Seems the same.
Oddly, nice make -j 5 is better than batch (but not quite up to stock).
--
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists