To: cygwin@cygwin.com
From: Thorsten Kampe <thorsten@thorstenkampe.de>
Subject:  Re: Cygwin allocted time slice
Date:  Thu, 14 Jun 2007 18:50:25 +0100
Lines: 49
Message-ID: <f4rv59$ogf$1@sea.gmane.org>
References:  <017001c7ae32$49dff3c0$0600a8c0@ze4427wm> <20070614034243.GA15091@ednor.casa1.cgf.cx> <006a01c7ae97$7c225cf0$0600a8c0@ze4427wm> <20070614154512.GD16423@ednor.casa1.cgf.cx>
Mime-Version:  1.0
Content-Type:  text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding:  7bit
User-Agent: MicroPlanet-Gravity/2.70.2067
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com

* Christopher Faylor (Thu, 14 Jun 2007 11:45:12 -0400)
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 04:20:04PM +0100, Aaron Gray wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 04:15:40AM +0100, Aaron Gray wrote:
> >>> Cygwin seems to only use a small amount of time slice relative to the
> >>> ammount of time slice availiable.  Compiles, builds and testsuite are
> >>> relly slow compared to MinGW which takes too much time.
> >>>
> >>> 'time' results confirm this.  Process time is about 1/4 of the total
> >>> system time.
> >>>
> >>> It i very noticable on compiling and testing GCC as compared to the
> >>> same on Linux or MinGW.
> >>>
> >>> Is there any way to give Cygwin a bigger slice of the pie ?
> >>>
> >>> Say 50% or 75% ?
> >>
> >> How do you suppose Cygwin is managing this interesting feat of only
> >> using some of the CPU time?  What Windows API is Cygwin using to just
> >> grab a small slice of the time?
> >
> > Weird I was getting very long compile times for GCC and on using 'time' was 
> > getting indications that make was only getting 25% of total system time.
> >
> > I'll see if it is repeatable on another system.
> >
> >> As a follow-up question:  Why do you suppose we are punishing you by
> >> not allowing Cygwin to use all of the CPU by default?
> >>
> >> Oh.  Wait.  WJM.  Nevermind.
> >
> > Weird reply, no need to take the micky !
> 
> You have apparently made an assumption that Cygwin is purposely using
> only a part of the CPU.  What's weird about asking for your rationale
> for why anyone would write a program which did such a thing, leaving it
> to some undocumented procedure to get better performance?  Why do you
> think we wouldn't just make this the default?

Aaron never said that "Cygwin" /purposely/, /actively/ uses only a 
small part of the CPU time.

Aaron's scenario is perfectly possible: by "nice"ing (assigning a 
different priority in Windows terms) all Cygwin processes.

So there really is no need to mock Aaron.


Thorsten


--
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/