X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Message-ID: <4582CA47.2070407@algonet.se> Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 17:16:07 +0100 From: Magnus Holmgren User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (Windows/20060909) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Cygwin slower on one computer References: <45804D3A DOT 6060602 AT algonet DOT se> In-Reply-To: <45804D3A.6060602@algonet.se> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 0659-0, 2006-12-15), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Magnus Holmgren wrote: > I'm trying to figure out why Cygwin build things so much slower on one > computer I have. We're talking about more than 3 times slower on a > computer that ought to be a bit faster (Athlon64 at 2.2-2.4 GHz, > compared to a Pentium M at 1.8 GHz). After some more digging - and a bit of feedback off-list - I get the feeling (in the cases I've noticed at least) that the speed difference is mainly explained by the following reasons (in no particular order): * fork is expensive. * vfork is just a wrapper for fork on cygwin. * fork is much more expensive on AMD than on Intel. The third one is the one I'm most unsure about, as I only really have data about one Intel architecture (the Pentium M). But on the AMD system, the page fault delta (as reported by Process Explorer) during a build is a little more than 10,000 per second, while on the Intel system, the page fault delta can go to 30,000 per second. (Anyone who knows how SFU implements (v)fork? :) Magnus -- 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/