This is the mail archive of the cygwin@cygwin.com mailing list for the Cygwin project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: old cygwin distributions


Christopher Faylor <cgf@redhat.com> wrote:

> And, that's part of the problem.  The words "cygwin scheduling bug" make
> very little sense.  Cygwin is not an OS which schedules things.  There
> was also a mention of fifos, which doesn't make sense in a cygwin
> context.

> The bottom line is that I tend to ignore problems where the description
> makes no sense.  It's a simple fact of life that we have to pick and
> choose what we do if we want to sleep 7 hours a night.

i'm sorry, you are right. i somehow expected the developers to magically
know whats going on :) anyway i narrowed the problem down when i ran the
whole thing through strace and it seems to be a pipe performance
problem. it seems that newer cygwin versions transfer the data in much
bigger blocks (or is it chunks?) and this causes a problem here.

> Out of curiousity, have you tried the most recent cygwin snapshot?  I'm
> wondering if "scheduling bug" translates into "emacs cygwin is using
> 100% of my CPU".  That bug is supposed to be fixed in cygwin snapshots.

unfortunately no.

and yes fifo is just the name cdrecord uses for buffers. nothing to do
with mkfifo and the like.

i will post a new detailed bug report in a few minutes, since the old
one didn't really describe the problem (and has a wrong subject).

thomas


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]