Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 30 Dec 2001 15:50:24 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 30 Dec 2001 15:50:07 -0500 Received: from mail.xmailserver.org ([208.129.208.52]:31756 "EHLO mail.xmailserver.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 30 Dec 2001 15:49:49 -0500 Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2001 12:53:29 -0800 (PST) From: Davide Libenzi X-X-Sender: davide@blue1.dev.mcafeelabs.com To: J Sloan cc: timothy.covell@ashavan.org, Stephan von Krawczynski , Dieter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?N=FCtzel?= , Robert Love , Linux Kernel List Subject: Re: [PATCH] Balanced Multi Queue Scheduler ... In-Reply-To: <3C2F7D49.9040606@pobox.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 30 Dec 2001, J Sloan wrote: > Timothy Covell wrote: > > >Ummm, on my Dual P-III (650MHz with 524988416 Bytes), my current Seti > >efficiency is 5.35 CpF. That's a tad high/slower than an Ultra Sparc IIi > >according to their stats. So, it would appear that being SMP is hurting my > >performance a bit. Unless that is that you meant to run a seti instance for > >each CPU? And this reminds me of how "make -j3 bzlilo" is slower than > >"make -j2 bzlilo". > > > Eh? > > On my 4-way ppro, make -j4 is much faster > than a simple "make" for kernel compilation. > Almost linearly so - He's saying -j3 on a dual CPU - Davide - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/