Meir Litmanovich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I don't understand the meaning of that "+1" (unless this is a way to > concur > > with another CPU-intensive process running simultaneously on the same box > - > > but then why not just SIGSTOP or renice it for awhile??). > > Oh, not. Just imagine your computer does nothing except for > kernel compilation (that's the situation, right ? ). > Then you really don't want to wait for I/O on this > machine. N+1 ensures that in time one gcc would stuck waiting > for I/O, other will effectively run. But why would one wait for I/O during compilation on an otherwise idle machine? Only if one has an AT disk or something similar by I/O performance, like NFS over very busy ethernet. Or, if the box is heavily swapping - but then an extra compilation process wouldn't help :). But in normal situations this shouldn't happen, IMO. At least, I've never seen any difference between compile times of make -j N and make -j N+1 (or, for that matter, N+k for any k > 0 - till the RAM is exhausted). Tried on several uni-processor and SMP boxes. Regards, Evgeny -- ____________________________________________________________ / Evgeny Stambulchik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> \ / Plasma Laboratory, Weizmann Institute of Science, Israel \ \ | Phone : (972)8-934-3610 == | == FAX : (972)8-934-3491 | | | URL : http://plasma-gate.weizmann.ac.il/~fnevgeny/ | | | Finger for PGP key >=====================================+ | |______________________________________________________________| ================================================================= To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
