[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re[4]: kernel compilation time
Meir Litmanovich <meir@xpert.com> wrote:
> > I don't understand the meaning of that "+1" (unless this is a way to
> concur
> > with another CPU-intensive process running simultaneously on the same box
> -
> > but then why not just SIGSTOP or renice it for awhile??).
>
> Oh, not. Just imagine your computer does nothing except for
> kernel compilation (that's the situation, right ? ).
> Then you really don't want to wait for I/O on this
> machine. N+1 ensures that in time one gcc would stuck waiting
> for I/O, other will effectively run.
But why would one wait for I/O during compilation on an otherwise idle
machine? Only if one has an AT disk or something similar by I/O performance,
like NFS over very busy ethernet. Or, if the box is heavily swapping - but
then an extra compilation process wouldn't help :). But in normal situations
this shouldn't happen, IMO. At least, I've never seen any difference between
compile times of make -j N and make -j N+1 (or, for that matter, N+k for any k
> 0 - till the RAM is exhausted). Tried on several uni-processor and SMP
boxes.
Regards,
Evgeny
--
____________________________________________________________
/ Evgeny Stambulchik <fnevgeny@plasma-gate.weizmann.ac.il> \
/ Plasma Laboratory, Weizmann Institute of Science, Israel \ \
| Phone : (972)8-934-3610 == | == FAX : (972)8-934-3491 | |
| URL : http://plasma-gate.weizmann.ac.il/~fnevgeny/ | |
| Finger for PGP key >=====================================+ |
|______________________________________________________________|
=================================================================
To unsubscribe, send mail to linux-il-request@linux.org.il with
the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail linux-il-request@linux.org.il