Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 13:49:49 -0700
From: clayne AT anodized DOT com
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: slowness issue between 20060309 and 20060313
Message-ID: <20060514204949.GG1783@ns1.anodized.com>
References: <20060514202404 DOT GF1783 AT ns1 DOT anodized DOT com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20060514202404.GF1783@ns1.anodized.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

On Sun, May 14, 2006 at 01:24:04PM -0700, clayne AT anodized DOT com wrote:
> not even slowdown that could be explained by typical fork overhead, it's literally
> 200% the difference.
> 
> >From 20060313 and any snapshot above that, I see the exact same behavior. From any
> below *and including* 20060309 I do *not* see the behavior.
> 
> -cl

Based on looking over the diff, I'm starting to wonder if the slowdown is primiarly
occuring due to later changes somewhere because of:

        * fork.cc (fork_retry): Define.
        (frok::parent): Reorganize to allow retry of failed child creation if
        child signalled that it was ok to do so.

Since it now it appears to be operating in an infinite loop with breakouts. What's
the best way of narrowing down the actual reason for slowdown? strace? Modifying
the diff to add extra debugging output specifying the amount of retries that may
have occured?

-cl

--
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/