Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 10:44:12 +0100 From: des@des.no (Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?q?Sm=F8rgrav?=) To: Scott Long <scottl@freebsd.org> Cc: current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Unhappy with recent make(1) changes Message-ID: <xzpsmikuqs3.fsf@dwp.des.no> In-Reply-To: <20040112172922.G56068@pooker.samsco.home> (Scott Long's message of "Mon, 12 Jan 2004 17:31:34 -0700 (MST)") References: <20040112223805.GA49251@FreeBSD.org.ua> <20040112233329.GB49251@FreeBSD.org.ua> <20040112172922.G56068@pooker.samsco.home>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Scott Long <scottl@freebsd.org> writes: > Try disabling HTT and seeing how that changes the results. Without a > good scheduler, HTT is a pessimization on CPU-intensive tasks like this. > It's quite possible that the mandatory delay that happened in the old > make(1) actually helped the HTT case a bit. When I tested DES's change, > I turned off HTT in order to not be influenced by it. Maybe switching to > ULE (which is HTT-aware, in theory) would help? The machine on which I tested the patch before committing it is a P4 with HTT enabled, and I'm using SCHED_4BSD, so that shouldn't be an issue. DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav - des@des.no
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?xzpsmikuqs3.fsf>