[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4AA6A9E8.9000407@garzik.org>
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2009 15:00:56 -0400
From: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
To: Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...il.com>
CC: Serge Belyshev <belyshev@...ni.sinp.msu.ru>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Subject: Re: Epic regression in throughput since v2.6.23
On 09/08/2009 01:47 PM, Jesse Brandeburg wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 5:57 AM, Serge
> Belyshev<belyshev@...ni.sinp.msu.ru> wrote:
>>
>> Hi. I've done measurments of time taken by make -j4 kernel build
>> on a quadcore box. Results are interesting: mainline kernel
>> has regressed since v2.6.23 release by more than 10%.
>
> Is this related to why I now have to double the amount of threads X I
> pass to make -jX, in order to use all my idle time for a kernel
> compile? I had noticed (without measuring exactly) that it seems with
> each kernel released in this series mentioned, I had to increase my
> number of worker threads, my common working model now is (cpus * 2) in
> order to get zero idle time.
You will almost certainly see idle CPUs/threads with "make -jN_CPUS" due
to processes waiting for I/O.
If you're curious, there is also room for experimenting with make's "-l"
argument, which caps the number of jobs based on load average rather
than a static number of job slots.
Jeff
--
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