X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Message-ID: <467161BB.A157E0BC@dessent.net> Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 08:41:47 -0700 From: Brian Dessent X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Cygwin allocted time slice References: <017001c7ae32$49dff3c0$0600a8c0 AT ze4427wm> <20070614034243 DOT GA15091 AT ednor DOT casa1 DOT cgf DOT cx> <006a01c7ae97$7c225cf0$0600a8c0 AT ze4427wm> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com 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 Aaron Gray wrote: > 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. Hint: Cygwin is slow. Emulating fork() takes a complicated dance between parent and child. A lot of this involves one waiting for the other to complete a stage of initialization. Thus, a Cygwin process that spawns a lot of children does a lot of waiting. It is a price you pay for being able to compile POSIX source unmodified on Windows. Also, I/O. Also, Cygwin is around ten years old now, and people have been complaining that it's slow for approximately 9 years and 364 days. Do you really think that if speeding it up was a matter of just setting some scheduling flag somewhere it would have gone unnoticed all this time? Brian -- 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/