[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH] sort: Add --threads option, which parallelizes internal sor
From: |
James Youngman |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH] sort: Add --threads option, which parallelizes internal sort. |
Date: |
Sun, 5 Apr 2009 09:55:05 +0100 |
On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 8:57 PM, Paul Eggert <address@hidden> wrote:
> More important, it's not clear to me what the role of the test suite
> ought to be. Should the test really fail if it doesn't get enough
> performance improvement with 2 threads? How do we decide what's
> "enough"? None of our other tests are performance tests so we are in a
> bit of a new ground here.
I don't have a resolution to this puzzle, but I think we should
probably try to avoid generating test failures on single-core machines
(where, I assume, there is limited benefit from increasing the number
of threads). While modern CPUs are generally multi-core, there is
nothing to stop processes being bound to a subset of cores (or indeed,
coreutils being built in a VM which is only allowed to use one core).
James.
- Re: [PATCH] sort: Add --threads option, which parallelizes internal sort., Jim Meyering, 2009/04/02
- Re: [PATCH] sort: Add --threads option, which parallelizes internal sort., Jim Meyering, 2009/04/03
- Re: [PATCH] sort: Add --threads option, which parallelizes internal sort., Paul Eggert, 2009/04/03
- Re: [PATCH] sort: Add --threads option, which parallelizes internal sort., Jim Meyering, 2009/04/03
- Re: [PATCH] sort: Add --threads option, which parallelizes internal sort., Ralf Wildenhues, 2009/04/04
- Re: [PATCH] sort: Add --threads option, which parallelizes internal sort., Ralf Wildenhues, 2009/04/04
- Re: [PATCH] sort: Add --threads option, which parallelizes internal sort.,
James Youngman <=
- Re: [PATCH] sort: Add --threads option, which parallelizes internal sort., Ralf Wildenhues, 2009/04/18