From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Gh46w-0007tL-Oj for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 06 Nov 2006 13:01:59 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.8) with SMTP id kA6CxYH6020841; Mon, 6 Nov 2006 12:59:34 GMT Received: from hades.rz.tu-clausthal.de (hades.rz.tu-clausthal.de [139.174.2.20]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id kA6CxYd9023705 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2006 12:59:34 GMT Received: from hades.rz.tu-clausthal.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 230B91F6A6D for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2006 13:59:34 +0100 (CET) Received: from tu-clausthal.de (poseidon [139.174.2.21]) by hades.rz.tu-clausthal.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0739F1F6A6A for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2006 13:59:34 +0100 (CET) Received: from energy.heim10.tu-clausthal.de ([139.174.241.94] verified) by tu-clausthal.de (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.1) with ESMTPS id 17989175 for gentoo-amd64@lists.gentoo.org; Mon, 06 Nov 2006 13:59:33 +0100 From: "Hemmann, Volker Armin" To: gentoo-amd64@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-amd64] Re: Unexpected side effect of GCC 4 Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 13:59:33 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.5 References: <200611050845.42865.prh@gotadsl.co.uk> <200611061305.31763.volker.armin.hemmann@tu-clausthal.de> <20061106124912.GI5921@randombit.net> In-Reply-To: <20061106124912.GI5921@randombit.net> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-amd64@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200611061359.33291.volker.armin.hemmann@tu-clausthal.de> X-Virus-Scanned: by PureMessage V4.7 at tu-clausthal.de X-Archives-Salt: 7052422a-5770-4978-8c41-eb04ed6347b8 X-Archives-Hash: b4fa39b4030ca99fd391575d81c207e5 On Monday 06 November 2006 13:49, Jack Lloyd wrote: > On Mon, Nov 06, 2006 at 01:05:31PM +0100, Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote: > > lets ask the other way round. Why should it speed up anything to have > > X>number of cores? Instead of a single thread per core, compiling > > happily, you have two or more competing for one core and regularly kick > > out each others data from the cache. > > To account for I/O wait states and how often does something wait for io and how often does some data is purged from the cache, because the other make instance is activated? When I switched from j2 to j1, compiling did not take any longer - but the box way much more usable. -- gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org mailing list