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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
