By: ? (0xe2.0x9a.0x9b.delete@this.gmail.com), November 15, 2009 2:13 am
Room: Moderated Discussions
Michael S (already5chosen@yahoo.com) on 11/15/09 wrote:
---------------------------
>Gabriele Svelto (gabriele.svelto@gmail.com) on 11/14/09 wrote:
>>It's certainly because of fork() and friends. The implementation is incredibly
>>inefficient, unfortunately it's the only way to do it on Windows and GNU/make makes
>>plenty use of those calls.
>
>I don't believe fork() has anything to do with it.
>To be clear, I am talking about slowness in the case where nothing or almost nothing
>has to be recompiled. So I'd expect that the only forks executed are forks of make
>itself for recursive processing of directories. So, since there are less than 20
>directories there would be less than 20 forks. As slow as they are 20 forks can't take several seconds.
The number of forks 'make' makes is *not* in direct relation to the number of directories. Try
---------------------------
>Gabriele Svelto (gabriele.svelto@gmail.com) on 11/14/09 wrote:
>>It's certainly because of fork() and friends. The implementation is incredibly
>>inefficient, unfortunately it's the only way to do it on Windows and GNU/make makes
>>plenty use of those calls.
>
>I don't believe fork() has anything to do with it.
>To be clear, I am talking about slowness in the case where nothing or almost nothing
>has to be recompiled. So I'd expect that the only forks executed are forks of make
>itself for recursive processing of directories. So, since there are less than 20
>directories there would be less than 20 forks. As slow as they are 20 forks can't take several seconds.
The number of forks 'make' makes is *not* in direct relation to the number of directories. Try
"strace -c -f make"
. Though, I do not know whether 'strace' works in Cygwin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strace says that it somehow does work).Topic | Posted By | Date |
---|---|---|
Article: Computational Efficiency in Modern Processors by DK | MoTheG | 2009/11/08 06:02 AM |
Article: Computational Efficiency in Modern Processors by DK | none | 2009/11/08 06:15 AM |
Silverthorne and OoO vs. InOrd | MoTheG | 2009/11/08 06:22 AM |
Silverthorne and OoO vs. InOrd | David Kanter | 2009/11/08 03:11 PM |
Magical 100x speedups | AM | 2009/11/09 08:03 AM |
Magical 100x speedups | David Kanter | 2009/11/09 11:41 AM |
Magical 100x speedups | none | 2009/11/09 12:36 PM |
Magical speedups | David Kanter | 2009/11/09 02:24 PM |
Magical speedups | none | 2009/11/09 02:40 PM |
Hardware Specs | MS | 2009/11/09 04:49 PM |
44x faster than a single cpu core | Vincent Diepeveen | 2009/11/10 07:17 AM |
Magical speedups | Vincent Diepeveen | 2009/11/10 07:02 AM |
Xeon 130x speedup vs Xeon | Eric Bron | 2009/11/10 07:20 AM |
Magical 100x speedups | AM | 2009/11/10 09:42 AM |
Magical 100x speedups | Linus Torvalds | 2009/11/10 12:19 PM |
Mega speedups | AM | 2009/11/11 05:21 AM |
Bogus 100x speedups | David Kanter | 2009/11/10 12:26 AM |
No speedups for CPUs for the general programming populace | MoTheG | 2009/11/10 04:26 AM |
Bogus 100x speedups | ? | 2009/11/10 04:45 AM |
Bogus 100x speedups | hobold | 2009/11/10 06:31 AM |
Bogus 100x speedups | Vincent Diepeveen | 2009/11/10 07:26 AM |
Bogus 100x speedups | sylt | 2009/11/10 09:00 AM |
Bogus 100x speedups | AM | 2009/11/10 09:47 AM |
GPU vs. CPU | MoTheG | 2009/11/09 10:30 AM |
GPU vs. CPU | a reader | 2009/11/09 06:58 PM |
ease of programming | MoTheG | 2009/11/09 10:45 PM |
yes for GPU programming you need non-public info | Vincent Diepeveen | 2009/11/10 07:36 AM |
yes for GPU programming you need non-public info | Potatoswatter | 2009/11/11 07:06 AM |
yes for GPU programming you need non-public info | Vincent Diepeveen | 2009/11/11 10:23 AM |
yes for GPU programming you need non-public info | Potatoswatter | 2009/11/11 12:26 PM |
Real businesses use GPGPU. | Jouni Osmala | 2009/11/11 10:00 PM |
GPU vs. CPU | ? | 2009/11/10 05:01 AM |
2. try but most is said, just clarifying | MoTheG | 2009/11/10 09:24 AM |
2. try but most is said, just clarifying | ? | 2009/11/11 12:11 AM |
you missread me | MoTheG | 2009/11/11 11:33 PM |
you missread me | ? | 2009/11/12 12:18 AM |
2. try but most is said, just clarifying | Potatoswatter | 2009/11/11 07:22 AM |
2. try but most is said, just clarifying | ? | 2009/11/12 12:22 AM |
loose, not so orderly | MoTheG | 2009/11/12 11:47 AM |
loose, not so orderly | Potatoswatter | 2009/11/12 05:50 PM |
2. try but most is said, just clarifying | rwessel | 2009/11/12 12:01 PM |
2. try but most is said, just clarifying | Gabriele Svelto | 2009/11/12 11:39 PM |
2. try but most is said, just clarifying | ? | 2009/11/13 12:14 AM |
2. try but most is said, just clarifying | Gabriele Svelto | 2009/11/13 12:30 AM |
2. try but most is said, just clarifying | rwessel | 2009/11/13 12:24 PM |
2. try but most is said, just clarifying | Michael S | 2009/11/14 12:08 PM |
2. try but most is said, just clarifying | Gabriele Svelto | 2009/11/14 10:38 PM |
2. try but most is said, just clarifying | Andi Kleen | 2009/11/15 12:19 AM |
2. try but most is said, just clarifying | Michael S | 2009/11/15 12:58 AM |
2. try but most is said, just clarifying | Eric Bron | 2009/11/15 01:25 AM |
/MP option | Eric Bron | 2009/11/15 01:33 AM |
/MP option | Paul | 2009/11/15 08:42 AM |
/MP option | Eric Bron | 2009/11/15 12:22 PM |
2. try but most is said, just clarifying | ? | 2009/11/15 02:13 AM |
2. try but most is said, just clarifying | Michael S | 2009/11/15 04:14 AM |
2. try but most is said, just clarifying | Eugene Nalimov | 2009/11/14 08:24 PM |
Atom point | AM | 2009/11/09 08:00 AM |
Atom TDP | David Kanter | 2009/11/09 11:48 AM |
Atom TDP | hobold | 2009/11/10 06:41 AM |
Atom TDP | AM | 2009/11/10 09:49 AM |