X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.7 required=5.0 	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SARE_FREE_WEBM_LAPOSTE
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Message-ID: <4B7C869D.8040908@laposte.net>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 01:15:25 +0100
From: Cyrille Lefevre <cyrille DOT lefevre-lists AT laposte DOT net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; fr; rv:1.8.1.3) Gecko/20070326 Thunderbird/2.0.0.0 Mnenhy/0.7.5.666
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Slow fork issue - Win x64
References: <1613876000 DOT 20080917204140 AT F1-Photo DOT com> <COL101-W1796553906F07DD5A0E579E64F0 AT phx DOT gbl> <1542859895 DOT 20080918134643 AT F1-Photo DOT com> <21561482 DOT post AT talk DOT nabble DOT com> <27607447 DOT post AT talk DOT nabble DOT com>
In-Reply-To: <27607447.post@talk.nabble.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-me-spamlevel: not-spam
X-me-spamrating: 34.000000
X-me-spamcause:  OK, (-150)(0000)gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrvdeltddrfeeiucetggdotefuucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuoehnohhnvgeqnecuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecuucdlqddutddtmdentghorhguihgrlhgvmhgvnhhtucdlqdehtddm
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com


Jarkko H=E4kkinen a =E9crit :
>=20
> I'm getting rather similar results on my Cygwin 1.7.1, Windows 7 as evide=
nced
> by the figures below. Upgraded from a dual core Windows XP to a quad core=
 i7
> Windows 7 causing my cygwin performance to plummet. Even the bash
> auto-completion is so annoyingly sluggish that it makes the shell virtual=
ly
> unusable.=20
>=20
> For me, there's no choice between whether or not to make the transition f=
rom
> XP to 7 as we're using the latest DirectX technology. Hope somebody will
> figure this out.
>=20
> [13:41:50 ~]$ while (true); do date; done | uniq -c
>       5 Tue Feb 16 14:00:09 FLEST 2010
>       7 Tue Feb 16 14:00:10 FLEST 2010
>       9 Tue Feb 16 14:00:11 FLEST 2010
>       9 Tue Feb 16 14:00:12 FLEST 2010
>       9 Tue Feb 16 14:00:13 FLEST 2010
>       9 Tue Feb 16 14:00:14 FLEST 2010
>       9 Tue Feb 16 14:00:15 FLEST 2010
>       9 Tue Feb 16 14:00:16 FLEST 2010
>       6 Tue Feb 16 14:00:17 FLEST 2010
>       5 Tue Feb 16 14:00:18 FLEST 2010
>       9 Tue Feb 16 14:00:19 FLEST 2010
>=20
>=20
>=20
> prashantv wrote:
>> My speeds are even slower than those posted:
>>
>> Prashant AT HOME [~]
>> $ while (true); do date; done | uniq -c
>>       1 Tue Jan 20 22:25:50 AUSEDT 2009
>>       1 Tue Jan 20 22:25:51 AUSEDT 2009
>>       2 Tue Jan 20 22:25:52 AUSEDT 2009
>>       1 Tue Jan 20 22:25:53 AUSEDT 2009
>>       2 Tue Jan 20 22:25:54 AUSEDT 2009
>>       2 Tue Jan 20 22:25:55 AUSEDT 2009
>>       1 Tue Jan 20 22:25:56 AUSEDT 2009
>>       3 Tue Jan 20 22:25:57 AUSEDT 2009
>>       1 Tue Jan 20 22:25:58 AUSEDT 2009
>>       2 Tue Jan 20 22:25:59 AUSEDT 2009
>>       2 Tue Jan 20 22:26:00 AUSEDT 2009
>>       2 Tue Jan 20 22:26:01 AUSEDT 2009
>>
>> I am running cygwin 1.5.25, Windows 2008 x64 on a Intel Core 2 @ 2.13ghz.
>> One CPU is maxed to 100% when forking. This speed explained why opening
>> bash took as long as 10 seconds, and I wanted to find out why it was so
>> slow.
>>
>> Is it possible to profile the implementation easily?

bash is not an efficient shell :

while : ; do date; done | uniq -c

       5 Thu Feb 18 01:03:30     2010
       8 Thu Feb 18 01:03:31     2010
       8 Thu Feb 18 01:03:32     2010
       9 Thu Feb 18 01:03:33     2010
       8 Thu Feb 18 01:03:34     2010
       9 Thu Feb 18 01:03:35     2010
       8 Thu Feb 18 01:03:36     2010
       5 Thu Feb 18 01:03:37     2010

let's try pdksh (well, not really more efficient) :

       7 Thu Feb 18 01:03:38     2010
       9 Thu Feb 18 01:03:39     2010
       8 Thu Feb 18 01:03:40     2010
       8 Thu Feb 18 01:03:41     2010
       8 Thu Feb 18 01:03:42     2010
       9 Thu Feb 18 01:03:43     2010
       8 Thu Feb 18 01:03:44     2010
       8 Thu Feb 18 01:03:45     2010
       8 Thu Feb 18 01:03:46     2010
       7 Thu Feb 18 01:03:47     2010

and ksh 93 :

       8 Thu Feb 18 01:03:59     2010
       7 Thu Feb 18 01:04:00     2010
      12 Thu Feb 18 01:04:01     2010
      12 Thu Feb 18 01:04:02     2010
      12 Thu Feb 18 01:04:03     2010
      12 Thu Feb 18 01:04:04     2010
      12 Thu Feb 18 01:04:05     2010
      12 Thu Feb 18 01:04:06     2010
      12 Thu Feb 18 01:04:07     2010
      12 Thu Feb 18 01:04:08     2010

ksh88 is not so bad :

       7 Thu Feb 18 01:06:47     2010
       6 Thu Feb 18 01:06:48     2010
      10 Thu Feb 18 01:06:49     2010
       9 Thu Feb 18 01:06:50     2010
       9 Thu Feb 18 01:06:51     2010
      10 Thu Feb 18 01:06:52     2010
       9 Thu Feb 18 01:06:53     2010
       9 Thu Feb 18 01:06:54     2010
       8 Thu Feb 18 01:06:55     2010
       9 Thu Feb 18 01:06:56     2010

tests realised under cygwin 1.7 on a Q6600 in 32 bit mode (around 30% of=20
cpu usage)

Cordialement,

Cyrille Lefevre
--=20
mailto:Cyrille DOT Lefevre-lists AT laposte DOT net



--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple