On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 01:20:22PM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote: > Progress at last! And without any patches! Well those look very reasonable to > me. Especially since -j5 is a worst case scenario.
Well that's with a noyield patch and your sched_tick fix. > But would you say it's still _adequate_ with ccache considering you > only have 1/6th cpu left for X? With and without ccache it's quite a > different workload so they will behave differently. No, I don't think 1/6th is being left for X in the ccache case so I think there's a bug lurking here. My memload, execload, and forkload test cases did better even with X niced. To confirm, I've just run 15 instances of memload with unniced Xorg and it performs better than make -j 5 with ccache. If I have some time tomorrow, I'll try to do a straight -mm1 to mm2 comparison with different loads. -- 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/
