Christopher Faylor
Wed Sep 21 13:35:00 GMT 2005

On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 07:24:39AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
>According to Christopher Faylor on 9/20/2005 10:05 AM:
>>AFAICT, we're not talking about defaults.  We're talking about the
>>optimum setting.
>>Your change to xargs doesn't permit me to go beyond 32K.  Personally,
>>I'd like to be able to override that.
>So would I.  See below.
>>I have a similar test which shows noticeable improvement when going
>>from 32K to 64K and miniscule-but-still-there improvements after that:
>Was this benchmark run on a modified xargs, or did you still suffer
>from the 32k limit?

It was a modified xargs and a modified cygwin to allow command line
lengths > 1M.  I would think that the fact that you see noticeable
timing differences between 32768 -> 262144 would make that pretty clear
that xargs was actually using these.

An unmodified xargs would have given errors if I attempted to use a
larger limit - hence my request to be allowed to use larger sizes.


More information about the Cygwin-patches mailing list