X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Message-ID: <4ECEE88E.5050307@cs.utoronto.ca> Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 19:59:58 -0500 From: Ryan Johnson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "cygwin AT cygwin DOT com" Subject: Machine very sluggish while compiling Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 Hi all, Lately I've noticed that running make -j4 on my quad-core win7-x64 machine causes it to become sluggish or even unresponsive. For example, compiling a large package makes the mouse jumpy, delays keystrokes, adds stutter to my music, and makes task switching painfully slow (though, oddly, if I manage to switch to the mintty that runs make the machine "comes back"). The sluggishness always hits when I'm using a native windows app with the compile running in the background. This starts to sound oddly like the recently-reported issue where X was causing native windows apps to freeze [1]. I'm not seeing any fork failures, and am running BLODA-free (Windows Defender hasn't reappeared since I last uninstalled it). There's no unusual disk activity and memory utilization remains stable. I've tried running with nice, reducing the priority of 'make' from the task manager, and running make -j3 to no avail, though empirically if utilization stays at or below 2 cpu then there's no problem. I've compiled large apps (gcc, binutils, emacs, gdb, ...) off and on for several years now and never seen this behavior before. Any ideas of how I might diagnose the issue further? It's easy enough to work around, but compiles take a lot longer with only 1-2 cores instead of 4. Thanks, Ryan [1] http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-xfree/2011-11/msg00027.html -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple