On Fri, 4 Jan 2002 17:24:18 -0800
Phil Oester <kernel@theoesters.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 04, 2002 at 04:42:43PM -0800, Nicholas Knight wrote:
> > The one catch is that -j is specified without a number.
>
> [snip superfluous description of what 'make -j' implies]
>
> > number, your system is dead. A user issue because it seems the user is
> > using the option without fully comprehending the consequences.
>
> eh? Trust me - i understand the implications of make -j. It's not an
unreasonable test, especially on a machine with 1gb ram/swap. For reference,
read Rik's email regarding his reverse VM patch:>
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=101007711817127&w=2
>
> Might be enlightening
I guess this testcase is somewhat driving in the direction of Martins test with
some setis running, meaning it has a lot of standard processes that need files
and try to work out something. Can you try Martins patch at your side, redo the
-j story and give us a result? I attached it for an easy go :-)
Thanks,
Stephan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 07 2002 - 21:00:28 EST