Re: How to increase maximum user cpu usage allowed on a multi core system?
On 11.03.2015 16:32, stan wrote: > On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 13:32:09 +0100 > poma wrote: > >>> 1. You still haven't provided basic information about the processor, >>thus 'lscpu' or a similar command. > $ lscpu > Architecture: x86_64 > CPU op-mode(s):32-bit, 64-bit > Byte Order:Little Endian > CPU(s):6 > On-line CPU(s) list: 0-5 > Thread(s) per core:2 > Core(s) per socket:3 > Socket(s): 1 > NUMA node(s): 1 > Vendor ID: AuthenticAMD > CPU family:21 > Model: 2 > Model name:AMD FX(tm)-6300 Six-Core Processor > Stepping: 0 > CPU MHz: 3500.000 > CPU max MHz: 3500. > CPU min MHz: 1400. > BogoMIPS: 7023.57 > Virtualization:AMD-V > L1d cache: 16K > L1i cache: 64K > L2 cache: 2048K > L3 cache: 8192K > NUMA node0 CPU(s): 0-5 > >> >> 2. Moreover you still haven't provided the difference between >>"I'm running Fedora 21 with a custom compiled kernel, >> 3.19.0-1.20150211.fc21.x86_64." and stock Fedora kernel - >> 3.18.8-201.fc21.x86_64, i.e. >>diff /boot/config-3.18.8-201.fc21.x86_64 >> /boot/3.19.0-1.20150211.fc21.x86_64 >> > I can do this but I think it is too large for a message. > There are 1532 lines of output from that command. > >> 3. Also you haven't mentioned whether the same happens with the stock >> Fedora kernel. > > Yes, it did. > >> >> 4. And you haven't explained why you use a custom kernel, and why >> particularly 3.19 kernel. > > To remove all the generalizations that have to be in stock kernels so > they can work for everyone. It greatly speeds compilation to not do > all those drivers that I don't need. Sound cards I don't have > > Latest that created packages without errors. I'll be upgrading to 4.0 > kernel shortly. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199312 > >> >> 5. Etc. >> >> How anybody can help in this way, man. >> > > I don't see how those have any relevance. All the answers to them > would do is be noise or distraction. This is at a meta level above > that, about the design and control level, rather than the implementation > details. I guess I am assuming that the kernel programmers have done > their job, and the kernel functionality is abstracted from the > underlying hardware. Especially for x86 architectures. > > I think Heinz has put his finger on the issue in his response: a single > process is limited to a single core. But, if that single process can > spawn other processes, which is what 'make -j6' should be doing, why > would that be true? I'll be following up in my response to him. > > Thanks for taking an interest, and I'm not trying to be hostile, but I > honestly don't see how answering your questions helps. > The Devil is in the detail. Both: 1. diff -u /boot/config-3.18.8-201.fc21.x86_64 /boot/config-3.19.0-1.20150211.fc21.x86_64 2. dmidecode (as root) to http://fpaste.org s'il vous plaît. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: How to increase maximum user cpu usage allowed on a multi core system?
On 11.03.2015, stan wrote: > What is the point of -j6 or -j8 if the make > can't spawn additional processes with their own limits, and thus take > advantage of more resources that are available? The point is simply that you can exactly determine how many processes should be used. > What is it that limits > a process and its children from using more resources than a single core, > even though they are available? As said, load balancing, task migration and thelike is done by the CPU scheduler. A single process is not limited to a single core, but its load is distributed over multiple cores. > Can you point me to which area of the kernel has the code that does the > actual load balancing? Haven't looked into this for some time, but take a look into /usr/src/linux/kernel/sched/fair.c. (The CFS code is complex and difficult to understand, though - at least for me). > Maybe it would be easy to do a custom patch that > bypasses this limiting behavior. I understand that parallel computing > requires parallel programming in the code, but I'm thinking more of > letting make have more than a single core available. Although there are voices saying that the actual CPU scheduler (CFS) underuses the CPU (see e.g. the comments to the BFS), I'm afraid what you see is by intention, and not a faulty behaviour. > above, it is already using multiple cores. I just want it to be able > to use all of those multiple cores if they are available. I see. > I can then start the job and let it run in the background with no > impact to other things I am doing. That is why I compile my things using "nice -n 19 make -j8" (on an 8-core). > What I was hoping was that when I wanted to run things overnight, > I could kick off a couple of compute intensive jobs, and > they would share all the resources of the computer until they were > done. You'll never be able to use 100% of all resources, because the system has to run while you're compiling. All you can do is to use multiple processes, if appropriate and available. Btw, here is a good explanation of Linux SMP scheduling: http://tinyurl.com/o4nuaxr And also take a look here: https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/scheduler/sched-design-CFS.txt http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/bfs/3.0/3.18/3.18-sched-bfs-460.patch (BFS is designed with latency in mind, not throughput). -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Raid vs rsync -
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 2:55 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: > Amazon Glacier is fairly inexpensive Google announced Nearline option for Google Cloud Storage, priced similar to Amazon Glacier but with faster retrieval. Storage price is the same, but retrieval is more expensive from the looks of it. Amazon has a complicated formula for retrieval. Fast retrievals cost a LOT more than slow ones. -- Chris Murphy -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: How to increase maximum user cpu usage allowed on a multi core system?
On 03/11/2015 11:49 AM, stan wrote: > On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 11:34:25 +0100 > Heinz Diehl wrote: >> It's the limiting to one process which causes what you observe. 1 >> process can not get more resources that 100%. The CPU scheduler >> handles how they are distributed. > > I think this is the key. What is the point of -j6 or -j8 if the make > can't spawn additional processes with their own limits, and thus take > advantage of more resources that are available? What is it that limits > a process and its children from using more resources than a single core, > even though they are available? We're thinking in terms of one machine with multiple cores here. What about an environment with multiple machines (each possibly with multiple cores). Now you have *many* more possibilities of where to run compiles with -j. Consider (for example) distcc. It can be configured to run build components on different machines (configurable per machine as to how many). So now, the -j 10 or -j 20 has more possibilities for distributing the load during the "make". -- Kevin J. Cummings kjch...@verizon.net cummi...@kjchome.homeip.net cummi...@kjc386.framingham.ma.us Registered Linux User #1232 (http://www.linuxcounter.net/) -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: helved packard pavilion 500
On 03/11/2015 04:38 AM, Heinz Diehl wrote: On 11.03.2015, Angelo Moreschini wrote: I am not sure if 1 TB is enough for use Windows and Fedora. It is more than enough. I agree. On my laptop (750GB hard drive, quad-core Intel, 8G RAM), I run F21 (Xfce) and often run two virtual machines on it at the same time via libvirtd (qemu or kvm...depends). -- - Rick Stevens, Systems Engineer, AllDigitalri...@alldigital.com - - AIM/Skype: therps2ICQ: 22643734Yahoo: origrps2 - -- - If it's stupid and it works...it ain't stupid! - -- -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: How to increase maximum user cpu usage allowed on a multi core system?
On 9 March 2015 at 19:03, stan wrote: > I'm running Fedora 21 with a custom compiled kernel, > 3.19.0-1.20150211.fc21.x86_64. > > I have a multi core system with 6 cores. All are recognized by the > kernel. > > But, when I run a compile job with -j6, in order to allow all six cores > to be used, it limits the total amount of usage to 100% of a *single* > core. So, it might use all six cores, but the sum of the percentages > on those six cores is always around 100% of one core. This is from > htop output. > > On large compilations, like the kernel or firefox, even using 4 cores > could drastically reduce compile time. > > I've looked at /etc/security/limits.conf, but it doesn't seem to have a > setting for this. I've also looked at the /proc system to see if there > is a kernel variable, though that seems unlikely, with no luck. Online > searching found ways to limit the amount that a single job can get, but > not how to set this for a user. There must be a configuration variable > somewhere that is limiting the amount of total cpu a user can use. But > I can't find it. > > Can anyone help? Been wondering about this thread for a while, as I use make -j N since some builds I've had to deal with (including the kernel) have pretty much shut down the machines they're running on if allowed to run in unrestricted -j mode. Some people have said that this is priority related, that's not the case. I can run "make -j10" here (dcmtk-3.6.1 to test if anyone wants to know) and see multiple ccplus going up to 100% at points, RHEL 6, a 2.6.3 kernel. What I do see during that process though is that early on multiple jobs run at less than 100% and maybe at approximately 100%/N, this may be due to how make starts parallel jobs, or it may simple be I/O or other non-CPU limiting on the compilation. You may want to check the .NOTPARALLEL directive is not present http://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/make.html#Parallel though I think that would simply prevent multiple processes. To repeat, make -j N should be able to start N processes and they should not be subject to an overall limit other than hardware. (Incidentally, one process can use more than 100% if written to use parallelisation, you can often see jvm doing this.) Since I can't reproduce this problem I'm not sure what's causing it. If you really are finding make subprocesses limited to 100% cpu across the lot then maybe have a look to see if there are any cgroups limits active https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/6/html/Resource_Management_Guide/ch01.html may also be worth running on the stock fedora kernel to test that it's not something that you've turned on in your custom kernel. Like I mentioned above, -j without N I've found can really make things drag on heavy builds. Even if you don't care about running other things at the same time, you can often get better a faster build by choosing a good N, as too many processes at once compete for other resources and run inefficiently. Things like hyperthreading can compound this. The only time I've done that is building the kernel on a dual core intel machine (no hyperthreading) and N=3 did turn out to be fastest, but that 50% rule may not always be the case. With hyperthreading present I've found with other processing tasks that pushing above 50% total system load (i.e. more than N*100%, due to virtual cores being counted) can actually slow down the overall task noticeably. -- imalone http://ibmalone.blogspot.co.uk -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: How to increase maximum user cpu usage allowed on a multi core system?
On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 11:34:25 +0100 Heinz Diehl wrote: > I just tried a simple "make" on an 8-core machine. There was exactly > one compile process, and it's 100% load was distributed over 3 cores. > So nothing wrong with that one. If you run 100% on one core or 100% > distributed over multiple cores is, in terms of efficacy, the same. This is my experience as well. > It's the limiting to one process which causes what you observe. 1 > process can not get more resources that 100%. The CPU scheduler > handles how they are distributed. I think this is the key. What is the point of -j6 or -j8 if the make can't spawn additional processes with their own limits, and thus take advantage of more resources that are available? What is it that limits a process and its children from using more resources than a single core, even though they are available? > Ondemand and performance affect the cpufreq, not the load balancing > or the involvement of different cores. Thanks, learn something every day. > No. It keeps every core running at full speed all the way, which has > nothing to do with how the load is balanced between different cores. Can you point me to which area of the kernel has the code that does the actual load balancing? Maybe it would be easy to do a custom patch that bypasses this limiting behavior. I understand that parallel computing requires parallel programming in the code, but I'm thinking more of letting make have more than a single core available. As you point out above, it is already using multiple cores. I just want it to be able to use all of those multiple cores if they are available. > > > I'll keep plugging away, reading and experimenting, until I get it > > or give up. > > Use "make -j" when compiling and be happy :-) Truly, it will probably come to this. I can then start the job and let it run in the background with no impact to other things I am doing. What I was hoping was that when I wanted to run things overnight, I could kick off a couple of compute intensive jobs, and they would share all the resources of the computer until they were done. With no impact to my use of the computer because I wouldn't be interacting with it. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: How to increase maximum user cpu usage allowed on a multi core system?
On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 13:32:09 +0100 poma wrote: > > 1. You still haven't provided basic information about the processor, >thus 'lscpu' or a similar command. $ lscpu Architecture: x86_64 CPU op-mode(s):32-bit, 64-bit Byte Order:Little Endian CPU(s):6 On-line CPU(s) list: 0-5 Thread(s) per core:2 Core(s) per socket:3 Socket(s): 1 NUMA node(s): 1 Vendor ID: AuthenticAMD CPU family:21 Model: 2 Model name:AMD FX(tm)-6300 Six-Core Processor Stepping: 0 CPU MHz: 3500.000 CPU max MHz: 3500. CPU min MHz: 1400. BogoMIPS: 7023.57 Virtualization:AMD-V L1d cache: 16K L1i cache: 64K L2 cache: 2048K L3 cache: 8192K NUMA node0 CPU(s): 0-5 > > 2. Moreover you still haven't provided the difference between >"I'm running Fedora 21 with a custom compiled kernel, > 3.19.0-1.20150211.fc21.x86_64." and stock Fedora kernel - > 3.18.8-201.fc21.x86_64, i.e. >diff /boot/config-3.18.8-201.fc21.x86_64 > /boot/3.19.0-1.20150211.fc21.x86_64 > I can do this but I think it is too large for a message. There are 1532 lines of output from that command. > 3. Also you haven't mentioned whether the same happens with the stock > Fedora kernel. Yes, it did. > > 4. And you haven't explained why you use a custom kernel, and why > particularly 3.19 kernel. To remove all the generalizations that have to be in stock kernels so they can work for everyone. It greatly speeds compilation to not do all those drivers that I don't need. Sound cards I don't have Latest that created packages without errors. I'll be upgrading to 4.0 kernel shortly. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199312 > > 5. Etc. > > How anybody can help in this way, man. > I don't see how those have any relevance. All the answers to them would do is be noise or distraction. This is at a meta level above that, about the design and control level, rather than the implementation details. I guess I am assuming that the kernel programmers have done their job, and the kernel functionality is abstracted from the underlying hardware. Especially for x86 architectures. I think Heinz has put his finger on the issue in his response: a single process is limited to a single core. But, if that single process can spawn other processes, which is what 'make -j6' should be doing, why would that be true? I'll be following up in my response to him. Thanks for taking an interest, and I'm not trying to be hostile, but I honestly don't see how answering your questions helps. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: gnome-shell: slow logins?
On 03/10/2015 01:00 PM, Rick Stevens wrote: Some users experience login delays on 30-60 seconds after entering their username/passwd in gdm (the "last login" time is shown, so it is not an I've found that delays of this nature are often caused by reverse DNS lookup issues. Have a good looksee at your /etc/resolv.conf files on Thanks for the suggestion. Installing the nscd caching name server seems to cut the delays noticeably, although not entirely. It may be a NIS issue. - Mike -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Problem upgrading VLC
On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 08:18:11 -0400, Paul Cartwright wrote: > On 03/11/2015 07:04 AM, Pál, László wrote: > > For me the following solved painlessly > > > > yum --enablerepo updates-testing update vlc > > > > L: > > > > I do not want to add a testing repo to my stable install... But that is exactly what has happened. The vlc update has been built against a libgpg-error from updates-testing. If you want that vlc update, it depends on stuff that's still in updates-testing. RPM Fusion always builds against updates-testing, because they don't use a separate build target for Test Updates. Btw, more Fedora Users ought to be less afraid of updates-testing. Most packages in there become stable updates anyway. You can give feedback in the Fedora Updates System and influence what would be marked stable _without_ any prior testing. Plus, with commands like yum distro-sync, yum downgrade, and yum history it has become much easier to revert the odd update that introduces a bug. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Problem upgrading VLC
On 03/11/2015 07:04 AM, Pál, László wrote: > For me the following solved painlessly > > yum --enablerepo updates-testing update vlc > > L: > I do not want to add a testing repo to my stable install... -- Paul Cartwright Registered Linux User #367800 and new counter #561587 -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: helved packard pavilion 500
On 11.03.2015, Angelo Moreschini wrote: > I am not sure if 1 TB is enough for use Windows and Fedora. It is more than enough. > I encountered a problem also trying to run on this computer the > SystemRescueCd Choose an alternative kernel when booting sysresccd. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Problem upgrading VLC
For me the following solved painlessly yum --enablerepo updates-testing update vlc L: 2015-03-10 20:23 GMT+01:00 casimiro barreto : > vlc-core complains about broken dependency (libgpg-error) (looks for > libgpg-error.so.0). libgpg-error is installed (x86_64 and i686) > libgpg-error-devel is installed but yum fails with: > > Plugins carregados: langpacks > Resolvendo dependências > --> Executando verificação da transação > ---> O pacote vlc.x86_64 0:2.2.0-1.fc21 será instalado > --> Processando dependência: vlc-core(x86-64) = 2.2.0-1.fc21 para o pacote: > vlc-2.2.0-1.fc21.x86_64 > --> Processando dependência: libvlccore.so.8()(64bit) para o pacote: > vlc-2.2.0-1.fc21.x86_64 > --> Executando verificação da transação > ---> O pacote vlc-core.x86_64 0:2.2.0-1.fc21 será instalado > --> Processando dependência: libgpg-error.so.0(GPG_ERROR_1.0)(64bit) para o > pacote: vlc-core-2.2.0-1.fc21.x86_64 > --> Resolução de dependências finalizada > Error: Pacote: vlc-core-2.2.0-1.fc21.x86_64 (rpmfusion-free-updates) >Requer: libgpg-error.so.0(GPG_ERROR_1.0)(64bit) > Você pode tentar usar o parâmetro --skip-broken para contornar o problema > Você pode tentar executar: rpm -Va --nofiles --nodigest > > > -- > The information contained in this message is confidential and > intended to the recipients specified in the headers. If you received > this message by error, notify the sender immediately. The > unauthorized use, disclosure, copy or alteration of this message > are strictly forbidden and subjected to civil and criminal sanctions. > > -- > users mailing list > users@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe or change subscription options: > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users > Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct > Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org > -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
helved packard pavilion 500
Hi I bout a new computer (Hewett Packard pavilion 500), but I have problems with this computer when I try to install Fedora. The first problem come with the HD: in this computer is mounted only one HD with1TB of capacity, and it is not possible to mount another HD (there is not the physical space to put another HD inside). I asked at HP support, and I got the answer that it is not possible to add other hard driver in this computer (???). I am not sure if 1 TB is enough for use Windows and Fedora. I encountered a problem also trying to run on this computer the SystemRescueCd I chose the graphical environment in the menu of this program, but, after the program started, it didn't run correctly- it stopped before showing the graphical interface... I don't know what it can be, that a good computer (HP) doesn't allow to run open source programs Some one have the same experience as me ??? Thank you Regards Angelo -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Raid vs rsync -
On 10.03.2015, Suvayu Ali wrote: > I would always encourage separate physical disks as backup partitions. > If the OP has flaky power, maybe having them offline when not in use, > would also be a good idea. I second that, this is a very important advice! In addition, use a good lightning protector both for the power outlet and the network. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: How to increase maximum user cpu usage allowed on a multi core system?
On 11.03.2015, stan wrote: > I don't see why this is necessary. The system is showing 470% > idle. So the kernel cpu scheduler shouldn't need to limit the job to a > single core maximum usage. I just tried a simple "make" on an 8-core machine. There was exactly one compile process, and it's 100% load was distributed over 3 cores. So nothing wrong with that one. If you run 100% on one core or 100% distributed over multiple cores is, in terms of efficacy, the same. > Even if it leaves some margin for error, it > should still be using more than a single core equivalent. The kernel > programmers are smart folks. Not to mention that they do large > compilations on multi-core machines often. I doubt that they hard > coded this kind of behavior into the kernel. It's the limiting to one process which causes what you observe. 1 process can not get more resources that 100%. The CPU scheduler handles how they are distributed. > So there must be a setting that is limiting the kernel scheduler in some way. > Maybe it's the scheduler that is being used. I'm using 'on demand' rather > than > 'performance'. Ondemand and performance affect the cpufreq, not the load balancing or the involvement of different cores. > 'Performance' sounds like it keeps everything at full > rev all the time. No. It keeps every core running at full speed all the way, which has nothing to do with how the load is balanced between different cores. > I'll keep plugging away, reading and experimenting, until I get it or > give up. Use "make -j" when compiling and be happy :-) -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
