From owner-freebsd-alpha Sat Apr 21 15:25:19 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-alpha@freebsd.org Received: from duke.cs.duke.edu (duke.cs.duke.edu [152.3.140.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EA6737B422; Sat, 21 Apr 2001 15:25:16 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gallatin@cs.duke.edu) Received: from grasshopper.cs.duke.edu (grasshopper.cs.duke.edu [152.3.145.30]) by duke.cs.duke.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA02890; Sat, 21 Apr 2001 18:25:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from gallatin@localhost) by grasshopper.cs.duke.edu (8.11.3/8.9.1) id f3LMOil11120; Sat, 21 Apr 2001 18:24:44 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from gallatin@cs.duke.edu) From: Andrew Gallatin MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15074.2220.727775.544765@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 18:24:44 -0400 (EDT) To: John Baldwin Cc: Andrew Gallatin , alpha@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: SMP is stable now. Whee! :) In-Reply-To: References: <15074.138.446582.781725@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 12) "Channel Islands" XEmacs Lucid Sender: owner-freebsd-alpha@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org John Baldwin writes: > > > > I'm happy to report that with this patchset, plus the > > cricical_enter/exit changes I just committed, a dual cpu 2100 made it > > through a buildworld last night just fine ;) > > Woo! The dual 4100 here is still cranking through a -j 8 world. What's the appropriate -j level for an MP box, anyway? I just naively used -j 2. Should I go higher? I realize going higher will be a better stress test, where does the overhead from cache pollution & extra scheduling outwheigh the possability of having another job whose I/O has completed & is ready to run? At least on a modern UP, like my tbird, omitting the -j seems to speed things up slightly.. Drew To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-alpha" in the body of the message