Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-developers-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Date:	Sun, 9 Sep 2001 00:20:24 +0400
From:	egor duda <deo AT logos-m DOT ru>
X-Mailer:	The Bat! (v1.53 RC/4)
Reply-To:	egor duda <cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com>
Organization:	deo
X-Priority:	3 (Normal)
Message-ID:	<30173382310.20010909002024@logos-m.ru>
To:	cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: cygwin slowdown in current cvs version
In-Reply-To:	<20010908155203.C12571@redhat.com>
References:	<130160175780 DOT 20010908204017 AT logos-m DOT ru>
	<127165775081 DOT 20010908221336 AT logos-m DOT ru>
	<186168543292 DOT 20010908225944 AT logos-m DOT ru> <20010908155203 DOT C12571 AT redhat DOT com>
MIME-Version:	1.0

Hi!

Saturday, 08 September, 2001 Christopher Faylor cgf AT redhat DOT com wrote:

>>To resume. I think we should back out Corinna's "reread /etc/passwd"
>>patch for now, wait for some time until dust settles, and release
>>1.3.3. after that i'll try to remake my /dev/dsp patch and see what
>>performance gains it gives (if any).

CF> Have you compared the numbers against 1.3.2 by any chance?

just did it. make in newlib/libm/common/ (after make clean) takes
(approximately):

from 0:16:00 to 0:16:30 with 1.3.2
from 0:14:30 to 0:15:00 with my locally built cygwin1.dll
from 0:32:00 to 0:34:00 with current CVS build
from 0:17:00 to 0:17:30 with "current CVS - /etc/passwd reread" build

the problem is that i cannot easily restore sources which was used to
build that "locally built cygwin1.dll" :(

CF> It occurred to me today that by moving the large zombies buffer into the
CF> heap, I ended up having fork always copy the array.  I don't know which
CF> is better -- having a large dll with a slower load time vs more to copy
CF> on fork.

CF> Have you tried backing out the zombies change, too?

no. i'm sorry, but i have to go home now. it's already 00:15 here in
Moscow, and i'm afraid i can miss the last train. i'll take a look at
this tomorrow.

Egor.            mailto:deo AT logos-m DOT ru ICQ 5165414 FidoNet 2:5020/496.19

- Raw text -