Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 15:27:04 -0700 (PDT) From: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org> To: Joachim =?iso-8859-1?Q?Str=F6mbergson?= <watchman@ludd.luth.se> Cc: clefevre@citeweb.net, stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Parallel kernel make Was Re: kernel.debug (was Re: HEADS UP! Always use the 'make buildkernel' target to make your kernels) Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0007161525200.89152-100000@freefall.freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <3971FA68.3A3C5F17@ludd.luth.se>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 16 Jul 2000, Joachim [iso-8859-1] Str=F6mbergson wrote:
> Just for kicks I tried doing a 'make -j4 buildkernel' with KERNEL=3DSNP40
> in /etc/make.conf and /boot/loader.conf. It works, that is the make
> finished without crashing. I dunno if the binary works, nor if the
> compile was substantially faster. So, superficially, parallel make of a
> kernel does work.
Yes, there is no reason why this should not work.
> It sure consumed a lot of resources for a few minutes though. My SETI
> run ran sloowly.
Well, wouldn't you kind of expect this given what you asked the system to
do (namely run 4 tasks at once)? However, -j4 is often slightly faster
even on uniprocessor systems than -j1 (or "no -j") because it doesn't have
to wait on Disk I/O. YMMV, of course.
Kris
--
In God we Trust -- all others must submit an X.509 certificate.
-- Charles Forsythe <forsythe@alum.mit.edu>
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0007161525200.89152-100000>