X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com From: Thorsten Kampe Subject: Re: Cygwin allocted time slice Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 18:50:25 +0100 Lines: 49 Message-ID: References: <017001c7ae32$49dff3c0$0600a8c0 AT ze4427wm> <20070614034243 DOT GA15091 AT ednor DOT casa1 DOT cgf DOT cx> <006a01c7ae97$7c225cf0$0600a8c0 AT ze4427wm> <20070614154512 DOT GD16423 AT ednor DOT casa1 DOT cgf DOT cx> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: MicroPlanet-Gravity/2.70.2067 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 * 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/