From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Piapi-0005bU-Gk for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 27 Jan 2011 23:00:54 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id ACD72E0ABC; Thu, 27 Jan 2011 22:59:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ww0-f53.google.com (mail-ww0-f53.google.com [74.125.82.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6084BE0ABC for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2011 22:59:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wwi18 with SMTP id 18so2546278wwi.10 for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2011 14:59:27 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:from:reply-to:to:subject:date:user-agent :references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:message-id; bh=Px14s/Gz/o5Nduak5smbZ+fIYqQcxF33o8jh8LPHB6E=; b=PQVRtNuFusrdGOJnTOwP026hU62X/ZrJ6EHZlF4Oegk5VDdB6IdWkr7fOPR1qilc6B Aaxm4OIGYa7+2+MiNrK+JXJSX4O+10f3tkfJlmEFmgWvtUTXta6jxOZ2QtIRw8Ke9UNw NhCzNdbg1dhCmz+zOW/2geAvFKdxkch6WDcK8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:reply-to:to:subject:date:user-agent:references:in-reply-to :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:message-id; b=BLslb4FhLGF7GYIVR7wBgwhmbokk3717d5LlQ39Gkw1agiDqAbEU3l89Fw3vYiOCFW 4+Y9SDglJzuWTpF0GK2bIc7u1ZXCJWWwPzZBQ6x+jq3U1FpOyL1e08Ce/iYi57RTjn0J +An4UVXizuI9rbLqYMRlXGho2NnSqokn3IduU= Received: by 10.227.132.213 with SMTP id c21mr1712654wbt.100.1296169167587; Thu, 27 Jan 2011 14:59:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from dell_xps.localnet (230.3.169.217.in-addr.arpa [217.169.3.230]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id o19sm8692190wee.2.2011.01.27.14.59.24 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 27 Jan 2011 14:59:25 -0800 (PST) From: Mick To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Simultaneously emerging multiple packages with same dependencies Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 22:59:24 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (Linux/2.6.36-gentoo-r5; KDE/4.4.5; x86_64; ; ) References: <201101272318.23087.joost@antarean.org> In-Reply-To: <201101272318.23087.joost@antarean.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart2643894.dSHq7Xq9OC"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201101272259.34847.michaelkintzios@gmail.com> X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 079a256348b1863d8233a61a63f7c747 --nextPart2643894.dSHq7Xq9OC Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thursday 27 January 2011 22:18:22 J. Roeleveld wrote: > On Thursday 27 January 2011 23:05:22 Paul Hartman wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 3:46 PM, J. Roeleveld wrot= e: > > >> Once, when building my kernel, I accidentally forgot to specify the > > >> number of makes and ran "make -j all". That was a really bad idea, t= he > > >> system became totally unresponsive for quite a long time, much longer > > >> than normal kernel build time, but it did eventually finish! > > >=20 > > > I have found that multi-core systems with sufficient memory can handle > > > "-j" (no value) a lot better then sindle-core systems. I do on occasi= on > > > do it with the kernel and can still continue using the system. (For > > > comparison, my desktop is a 4-core AMD64 with 8GB memory) > >=20 > > Strange, in my case it was an i7 920 (4 cores, hyperthreaded, appears > > as 8 CPUs to Linux) with 12GB of RAM. Maybe if I prefixed it > > with"nice" it would not have brought my computer to its knees... or > > maybe related to the schedulers and other kernel voodoo that I don't > > understand. I might try it again someday :) >=20 > That is strange, unless your harddrive is really underperforming? > Or do you have all the options in the kernel selected? >=20 > Btw, HyperThreading doesn't work too well when you have a lot of identical > tasks. In that case, you might end up with lesser performance as there are > no "usable unused" parts in your cores, but the CPU-schedules (the > hardware one for HT) is looking for things to fill those last few bits > with. I'm running i7 Q 720 (4 cores, hyperthreaded) and have MAKEOPTS=3D"-j9" wit= hout=20 any slowdown. One or two packages (like OpenOffice) will fail and need -j= =3D1=20 to emerge. Otherwise no noticeable drop in desktop responsiveness. I have not set up portage niceness so it runs with default value. Given the above what shall I set --load-average as? =2D-=20 Regards, Mick --nextPart2643894.dSHq7Xq9OC Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAk1B+NYACgkQVTDTR3kpaLar0ACfVfF9V4w9Vg6GZTRbIfgTKrrQ YjwAoMKVVyEP5XLjbGvKxqCGc+yde5Zj =2yqy -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart2643894.dSHq7Xq9OC--