Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 22:25:57 -0800 From: Jonathan Mini <mini@freebsd.org> To: Scott Long <scottl@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh Message-ID: <63F2B437-2490-11D8-BEFA-000A95CD3CF8@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <3FCC2E15.90204@freebsd.org> References: <200311251214.23290.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> <00a701c3b33c$f798c5e0$b9844051@insultant.net> <20031126052320.GH15294@wombat.localnet> <p06002014bbea2b21766b@[128.113.24.47]> <20031127161940.I77322@gamplex.bde.org> <p0600201bbbeecf65f8b1@[128.113.24.47]> <C2E2964E-248C-11D8-BEFA-000A95CD3CF8@freebsd.org> <3FCC2E15.90204@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Dec 1, 2003, at 10:15 PM, Scott Long wrote: > Jonathan Mini wrote: >> I have found that the cost of printing the spew often >> slows down compiles measurably, especially when spewing >> to an xterm running on a local XFree86 process. Even >> with syscons, this is noticeable. >> I generally tend to run my builds behind the screen >> port these days, which helps (screen implements a >> virtual display buffer that disconnects screen updates >> from the display client and the slave pty). Another >> optimization worth noting is running make -q, which >> silences a lot of that spam (urban legend has it that >> the synchronization in parallel makes to write the build >> messages causes noticeable amounts of contention). > > I regularly use -s. With the pipe code being completely > Giant-free, I don't see a significant performance difference > anymore on an SMP machine when the output is not supressed. Ah, I meant -s. And, that is good news. I am still running on a 4.x system most of the time, and (sigh) Linux 2.4.x the rest of the time. -- Jonathan Mini mini@freebsd.org http://www.freebsd.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?63F2B437-2490-11D8-BEFA-000A95CD3CF8>