From: Steven Cole <scole@lanl.gov>
To: helgehaf@idb.hist.no
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, elenstev@mesatop.com
Subject: Re: UP 2.2.18 makes kernels 3% faster than UP 2.4.0-test12
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 07:49:48 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <00121207494808.01067@spc.esa.lanl.gov> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10012111357430.21909-100000@innerfire.net>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10012111357430.21909-100000@innerfire.net>
Helge Hafting wrote:
>Steven Cole wrote:
>[...]
>>Simple question here, and risking displaying great ignorance:
>>Does it make sense to use make -jN where N is much greater than the
>>number of CPUs?
>
>No, but it makes sense to have N at least one more than the number of
>cpus,
>if you have the memory. This because your processes occationally
>will wait for disk io, and this time may then be utilized to
>run the "extra" task. But don't overdo it, as you get less disk
>cache this way. make -j3 seems to be fastest on my 2-cpu machine
>with 128M ram.
Thanks for the answer. That makes a lot of sense. When I get the time,
I'll verify that, at least for this fairly narrowly defined task of building
a kernel.
In order to minimize external and variable influences on the CPU load, I
performed all these tests in console mode not connected to a network. That
may have been an unrealistic test, as that is not how I normally do kernel
builds. Having to juggle more work, like running X and KDE, could shift the
results (2.2.18 vs 2.4.0-test12) around a bit. I'll repeat the tests with a
more normal work environment. If anything statistically significant is found,
I'll mention it. Thanks to all for their input.
Steven
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2000-12-12 15:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2000-12-10 20:36 Steven Cole
2000-12-11 18:16 ` John Fremlin
2000-12-11 18:38 ` Rik van Riel
2000-12-11 18:46 ` Alan Cox
2000-12-11 19:50 ` Zdenek Kabelac
2000-12-11 20:15 ` Arjan van de Ven
2000-12-11 20:23 ` Rik van Riel
2000-12-11 22:03 ` Gerhard Mack
2000-12-11 22:06 ` Alan Cox
2000-12-13 9:44 ` Rogier Wolff
2000-12-14 13:08 ` Russell King
2000-12-16 0:40 ` george anzinger
2000-12-12 14:49 ` Steven Cole [this message]
2000-12-12 18:18 ` Steven Cole
2000-12-12 18:40 ` Linus Torvalds
2000-12-12 20:19 ` Steven Cole
2000-12-12 20:38 ` Linus Torvalds
2000-12-12 22:09 ` Steven Cole
2000-12-11 22:12 ` Gabor Lenart
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2000-12-10 15:31 Steven Cole
2000-12-10 19:52 ` Aaron Tiensivu
2000-12-11 23:02 ` Steven Cole
2000-12-12 4:40 ` Mike Galbraith
2000-12-12 5:17 ` Steven Cole
2000-12-12 5:20 ` Mike Galbraith
2000-12-12 11:01 ` Helge Hafting
2000-12-12 10:27 ` Rik van Riel
2000-12-12 14:15 ` Mike Galbraith
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=00121207494808.01067@spc.esa.lanl.gov \
--to=scole@lanl.gov \
--cc=elenstev@mesatop.com \
--cc=helgehaf@idb.hist.no \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®