From owner-freebsd-arm@freebsd.org Sat Jul 4 02:08:43 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arm@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1190F35EC21 for ; Sat, 4 Jul 2020 02:08:43 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fbsd@www.zefox.net) Received: from www.zefox.net (www.zefox.net [50.1.20.27]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "www.zefox.com", Issuer "www.zefox.com" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49zFcT5tF4z42jN for ; Sat, 4 Jul 2020 02:08:41 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fbsd@www.zefox.net) Received: from www.zefox.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by www.zefox.net (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 06428jDE037070 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 3 Jul 2020 19:08:45 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from fbsd@www.zefox.net) Received: (from fbsd@localhost) by www.zefox.net (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id 06428jQA037069; Fri, 3 Jul 2020 19:08:45 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from fbsd) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2020 19:08:45 -0700 From: bob prohaska To: Mark Millard Cc: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org, bob prohaska Subject: Re: 1341MB swap in use with half gig of free memory Message-ID: <20200704020845.GB36886@www.zefox.net> References: <20200703224433.GA36511@www.zefox.net> <69F3DAD2-9BFD-4D74-8E80-E8761E740606@yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <69F3DAD2-9BFD-4D74-8E80-E8761E740606@yahoo.com> X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 49zFcT5tF4z42jN X-Spamd-Bar: ++ Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=none (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of fbsd@www.zefox.net has no SPF policy when checking 50.1.20.27) smtp.mailfrom=fbsd@www.zefox.net X-Spamd-Result: default: False [2.83 / 15.00]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; WWW_DOT_DOMAIN(0.50)[]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[zefox.net]; AUTH_NA(1.00)[]; NEURAL_SPAM_MEDIUM(0.67)[0.667]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.21)[-0.209]; NEURAL_SPAM_LONG(0.47)[0.474]; R_SPF_NA(0.00)[no SPF record]; FREEMAIL_TO(0.00)[yahoo.com]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:7065, ipnet:50.1.16.0/20, country:US]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; MID_RHS_WWW(0.50)[] X-BeenThere: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.33 Precedence: list List-Id: "Porting FreeBSD to ARM processors." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 04 Jul 2020 02:08:43 -0000 On Fri, Jul 03, 2020 at 04:27:49PM -0700, Mark Millard wrote: > > As stands you are not just keeping all RAM in use, you are > keeping much of the swap/paging space in heavy use as well. > Both CPUs and RAM end up waiting on paging/swapping I/O in > order to deal with the original memory access requests by > programs. > In fact I'd forgotten how long it takes to swap in enough data to re-start a thread. That idle time was what made me think something was wrong. My mistake. But, would restricting the number of usable cores using -j1 or -j2 reduce the overall compile time? Clearly, it would make the system more responsive to new demands by keeping resources in reserve, but this is basically a batch job. There are no other users to placate. So long as it doesn't get stuck more cores in use seem better. Thanks for writing! bob prohaska