Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 00:47:25 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 00:47:15 -0500 Received: from uberbox.mesatop.com ([208.164.122.11]:21515 "EHLO uberbox.mesatop.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 00:47:05 -0500 From: Steven Cole Reply-To: elenstev@mesatop.com To: Mike Galbraith Subject: Re: UP 2.2.18 makes kernels 3% faster than UP 2.4.0-test12 Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 22:17:36 -0700 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.1.95.2] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00121122173600.03488@localhost.localdomain> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 11 Dec 2000, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Mon, 11 Dec 2000, Steven Cole wrote: > > I have a SMP (dual P-III 733Mhz) machine at work, but it will be > > unavailable for testing for a few more days. I suspect that 2.4.0-test12 > > will do better than 2.2.18 with 2 CPUs. I'll know in a few days. [snip] > > I think it's better with -j. Do it with -jN where N is small enough > to keep the box away from swap, and then repeat with N large enough to > swap modestly (not too heavily or you're only testing disk MTBF:). I've always used make -j2 bzImage for my two processor machine. I like being able to build kernels in a little over two minutes. Simple question here, and risking displaying great ignorance: Does it make sense to use make -jN where N is much greater than the number of CPUs? Steven - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/