Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
From:	"Dave Korn" <dave DOT korn AT artimi DOT com>
To:	<cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject:	RE: Problems with Windows threads and cygwin sleep()
Date:	Thu, 25 Aug 2005 13:38:33 +0100
MIME-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<20050825120922.GQ17452@calimero.vinschen.de>
Message-ID:	<SERRANOOdZ3m7jN3vUQ000002bc@SERRANO.CAM.ARTIMI.COM>

----Original Message----
>From: Corinna Vinschen
>Sent: 25 August 2005 13:09

> 
> Even if we can't do much about it, it would be interesting to find out
> how Cygwin affects CPU usage of non-Cygwin processes.
> 

  When I moved from 2k to XP I noticed that running big cross compiles in
the background in a bash shell was much more obtrusive than it used to be,
and could cause other (gui) apps to be unresponsive and stall; I always use
taskmanager to lower the priority of my bash shells these days.

  I think that MS must have buggered up^W^W'improved' their scheduler
between 2k and XP, and this interaction is a result.  My first guess is that
there's some competition for a locked resource of some kind, and this
particularly interferes with scheduling under heavy load, but that's only a
guess at the moment.  I think tracking this one down might be easiest with a
proper windbg/remote kernel debug setup.


    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

- Raw text -