http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11364
Summary: WinRar doesn't fully utilize two CPU cores in multithreading mode Product: Wine Version: CVS/GIT Platform: PC URL: http://rarlabs.com/download.htm OS/Version: Linux Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: -unknown AssignedTo: wine-bugs@winehq.org ReportedBy: t.artem@mailcity.com
WinRar doesn't fully utilize two cores of an SMP system if it has detected them. On average WinRar's CPU usage is around 140-160% on a dual core SMP system, while the best usage will be 200%.
Anyway thank you for resolving bug 7551.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11364
Artem S. Tashkinov t.artem@mailcity.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Component|-unknown |wineserver Keywords| |download
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11364
Dmitry Timoshkov dmitry@codeweavers.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Component|wineserver |-unknown
--- Comment #1 from Dmitry Timoshkov dmitry@codeweavers.com 2008-03-16 10:26:07 --- There is no reason to think it's a wineserver fault.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11364
--- Comment #2 from Rico kgbricola@web.de 2008-03-16 11:54:08 --- I think it is nearly the same on windows. I tested with a demo version from a game which I packed. The cpu usage was about 90% (windows has 100% max, each core 50% on a dual core system). So winrar on windows doesn't reach the 100%!
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11364
Dmitry Timoshkov dmitry@codeweavers.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution| |INVALID
--- Comment #3 from Dmitry Timoshkov dmitry@codeweavers.com 2008-03-17 00:10:56 --- Closing as invalid then.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11364
Dmitry Timoshkov dmitry@codeweavers.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RESOLVED |CLOSED
--- Comment #4 from Dmitry Timoshkov dmitry@codeweavers.com 2008-03-17 00:11:09 --- Closing.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11364
Artem S. Tashkinov t.artem@mailcity.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|CLOSED |UNCONFIRMED Resolution|INVALID |
--- Comment #5 from Artem S. Tashkinov t.artem@mailcity.com 2008-03-17 13:54:46 ---
I think it is nearly the same on windows. I tested with a demo version from a
game which I packed. The cpu usage was about 90% (windows has 100% max, each core 50% on a dual core system). So winrar on windows doesn't reach the 100%!
Though I appreciate your opinion - it is the opinion and not a fact. Also you're speaking about SOME demo and not about this particular application against which I've file a bug report.
In Windows WinRAR fully utilizes two cores of any SMP system. The matter of fact is that in Windows WinRAR performance increases almost *twofold* whereas in Linux we have just 25% of increase.
Reopening.
P.S. If you think Wine serves this application just fine and this bug report is just a waste of your time then close it forever. You also alienate me to a degree when I will not file any new bug reports against Wine ever.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11364
--- Comment #6 from Dmitry Timoshkov dmitry@codeweavers.com 2008-03-17 21:48:53 --- I downloaded WinRAR 3.71 and tested it on my Core2 Duo (2 cores) laptop. The CPU usage is very similar under Ubuntu 7.04 64-bit and Vista 64-bit: RAR doesn't use 100% on both cores in either case, maximum I see is about 80%.
Artem, what RAR version are you using, what results do you get, and under what OSes?
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11364
--- Comment #7 from Lei Zhang thestig@google.com 2008-03-18 00:41:17 --- Artem, rather than throwing a fit when someone disagrees with you, why not try to be more helpful and provide more useful info on this bug. How are you testing multithreading mode? Are you creating a rar file or extracting one? Are you using the command line or the GUI? What tools are you measuring CPU usage with?
I tried wine Rar.exe a -mt2 winrar.rar foo bar baz ...
where the set of files to compress is about 500 MB. The total cpu usage on my core 2 duo was around 120%, including running top, firefox, etc. I measured this by running top, and I pressed '1' to display the cpu usages separately. This was not I/O bound. The files I'm compressing are all cached in memory.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11364
--- Comment #8 from Dmitry Timoshkov dmitry@codeweavers.com 2008-03-18 00:46:42 --- Lei, I guess that's under Linux. What results do you get under Windows?
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11364
--- Comment #9 from Lei Zhang thestig@google.com 2008-03-18 01:31:00 --- Created an attachment (id=11467) --> (http://bugs.winehq.org/attachment.cgi?id=11467) cpu graph on windows
I used the task manager to measure cpu usage on XP SP 2. This is with the same computer. (dual booting) It looks like WinRar is utilizing more CPU on Windows.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11364
--- Comment #10 from Lei Zhang thestig@google.com 2008-03-18 01:56:09 --- FYI, Winrar has a built in benchmark: Tools -> Benchmark
In Wine, I get 910 KB/s. On Windows, I get ~1230 KB/s. 1230 / 910 = 1.35.
If I uncheck the multithreading checkbox, In Wine I get 745. I'm too lazy right now to reboot yet again to find out what it is on Windows. :)
This is with WinRar 3.71. I'm using a custom compiled 2.6.24 kernel from stock kernel.org source code. In my kernel config, I have the following settings:
- tickless kernel - multi-core scheduler - preemptable kernel - low latency desktop - timer freq = 300 hz - on demand cpufreq (I did let the benchmark run long enough that the numbers were steady)
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11364
Rico kgbricola@web.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |kgbricola@web.de
--- Comment #11 from Rico kgbricola@web.de 2008-03-18 14:56:42 ---
Though I appreciate your opinion - it is the opinion and not a fact. Also you're speaking about SOME demo and not about this particular application against which I've file a bug report.
Sorry, I have written this a little bit ugly ... The right way should be ... - I download Winrar wrar371d.exe - installed it - opened Winrar and cd to the directory where the demo was - selected the demo of a game (darkcrusadedemo.exe) - pressed the "Hinzufügen" (Add) - button and selected a rar file - I looked at the CPU-Usage
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11364
--- Comment #12 from Artem S. Tashkinov t.artem@mailcity.com 2008-03-19 13:05:03 --- To clarify the issue: we are talking about "Tools -> Benchmark and Hardware Test" (Alt + B), so we exclude any IO activity and related performance penalties.
Hardware: AMD Dual Core X64 CPU 5200.
Windows XP vanilla x86 SP2 results (in KB/sec):
Single thread mode: 659 (CPU Usage - 50% - or 100% from the unix standpoint) Multi thread mode: 1120 (CPU Usage - 98% - or 196% from the unix standpoint)
Linux 2.6.24.3 x86 k8 + Wine 0.9.57
Single thread mode: 649 (CPU Usage - 100% WinRAR.exe + 0% wineserver) Multi thread mode: 728-742 (CPU Usage - 117-128% WinRAR.exe + 2% wineserver)
The bottom line is that in Windows XP Winrar almost fully utilizes both cores while in Linux CPU usage never surpasses 130% (100% of the first core and 30% of the second).
Relevant linux kernel configuration:
CONFIG_NR_CPUS=4 # CONFIG_SCHED_SMT is not set CONFIG_SCHED_MC=y # CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE is not set # CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY is not set CONFIG_PREEMPT=y CONFIG_PREEMPT_BKL=y CONFIG_X86_LOCAL_APIC=y CONFIG_X86_IO_APIC=y CONFIG_X86_MCE=y CONFIG_X86_MCE_NONFATAL=y # CONFIG_X86_MCE_P4THERMAL is not set CONFIG_VM86=y # CONFIG_TOSHIBA is not set # CONFIG_I8K is not set # CONFIG_X86_REBOOTFIXUPS is not set # CONFIG_MICROCODE is not set # CONFIG_X86_MSR is not set # CONFIG_X86_CPUID is not set # CONFIG_NOHIGHMEM is not set CONFIG_HIGHMEM4G=y # CONFIG_HIGHMEM64G is not set CONFIG_PAGE_OFFSET=0xC0000000 CONFIG_HIGHMEM=y CONFIG_ARCH_FLATMEM_ENABLE=y CONFIG_ARCH_SPARSEMEM_ENABLE=y CONFIG_ARCH_SELECT_MEMORY_MODEL=y CONFIG_SELECT_MEMORY_MODEL=y CONFIG_FLATMEM_MANUAL=y # CONFIG_DISCONTIGMEM_MANUAL is not set # CONFIG_SPARSEMEM_MANUAL is not set CONFIG_FLATMEM=y CONFIG_FLAT_NODE_MEM_MAP=y CONFIG_SPARSEMEM_STATIC=y
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11364
--- Comment #13 from Artem S. Tashkinov t.artem@mailcity.com 2008-03-19 13:06:35 --- Created an attachment (id=11501) --> (http://bugs.winehq.org/attachment.cgi?id=11501) CPU usage in Windows XP
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11364
--- Comment #14 from Artem S. Tashkinov t.artem@mailcity.com 2008-03-19 13:15:10 --- Linux top gives very strange picture:
Cpu0 : 69.3%us, 8.0%sy, 0.0%ni, 22.8%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st Cpu1 : 46.9%us, 3.8%sy, 0.0%ni, 49.3%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st Mem: 2043500k total, 629884k used, 1413616k free, 21588k buffers Swap: 0k total, 0k used, 0k free, 297056k cached
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND 2306 birdie 20 0 2600m 47m 6996 R 127 2.4 3:14.26 WinRAR.exe 2309 birdie 20 0 4564 1952 632 S 2 0.1 0:02.62 wineserver
In fact no CPU kernel is fully used in multithread mode.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11364
--- Comment #15 from Lei Zhang thestig@google.com 2008-03-24 22:51:37 --- Finally rebooted back into XP. I get 736 in single threaded mode.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11364
Mikolaj Zalewski mikolaj.zalewski@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mikolaj.zalewski@gmail.com Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #16 from Mikolaj Zalewski mikolaj.zalewski@gmail.com 2008-07-05 11:45:08 --- On my system (kernel 2.6.20, Core 2 Duo T7300, Wine 1.1.0) I have on each CPU something around in 70% used user mode, 15% kernel mode and only 15% idle. But still, I got only some 23% preformance increase in multithreading mode, compared to 55% under Windows Vista.
I attached the debugger several times to WinRAR to check what the threads are doing. I have never seen one thread waiting for another on a lock - they were either both running WinRAR code or one was doing a server call related to thread creation or destruction (e.g. CloseHandle in user32 DLL_THREAD_DETACH or RtlAcquirePebLock in start_thread). WinRAR 2.71 doesn't use a thread pool but creates/destroys lots of threads. Maybe Windows thread creation/destruction code is more efficient than Wine's.
But that doesn't explain where the 15% idle time comes from. As far as I understand, the wineserver is single-threaded, but it only uses 2% CPU time, so this shouldn't be the problem.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11364
--- Comment #17 from Austin English austinenglish@gmail.com 2009-01-03 11:56:22 --- Is this still an issue in current (1.1.12 or newer) wine?
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11364
--- Comment #18 from Austin English austinenglish@gmail.com 2009-01-05 16:01:44 --- (In reply to comment #17)
Is this still an issue in current (1.1.12 or newer) wine?
Artem e-mailed me privately saying it's still a problem.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11364
Austin English austinenglish@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Version|CVS/GIT |unspecified
--- Comment #19 from Austin English austinenglish@gmail.com 2009-01-18 03:47:50 --- Removing deprecated CVS/GIT version tag. Please retest in current git. If the bug is still present in today's wine, but was not present in some earlier version of wine, please update version field to earliest known version of wine that had the bug. Thanks!
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11364
Artem S. Tashkinov t.artem@mailcity.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Platform|PC |All Version|unspecified |0.9.51.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11364
Vitaliy Margolen vitaliy@kievinfo.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Platform|All |PC
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11364
--- Comment #20 from Artem S. Tashkinov t.artem@mailcity.com 2009-11-24 03:00:15 --- Wine 1.1.33 has become much better in running WinRAR (641 in UP mode, 961 in SMP mode), but still WinRAR only uses 160% out of two CPUs (in theory it should use close to 200%).
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11364
--- Comment #21 from Nikolay Sivov bunglehead@gmail.com 2009-11-24 09:11:12 --- (In reply to comment #20)
Wine 1.1.33 has become much better in running WinRAR (641 in UP mode, 961 in SMP mode), but still WinRAR only uses 160% out of two CPUs (in theory it should use close to 200%).
Try with current wine from git repo. Commit http://source.winehq.org/git/wine.git/?a=commit;h=a764fe89212500b0ffa23fa9a9... should probably fix this.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11364
--- Comment #22 from Artem S. Tashkinov t.artem@mailcity.com 2009-11-24 09:29:06 --- That commit didn't really help. However there's one thing I'd like everyone to know, with threads being shown, `top` shows this:
top - 20:24:47 up 8:10, 1 user, load average: 0.16, 0.25, 0.14 Tasks: 261 total, 3 running, 258 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie Cpu0 : 79.4%us, 1.0%sy, 0.0%ni, 19.6%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st Cpu1 : 80.7%us, 1.8%sy, 0.0%ni, 17.4%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st Mem: 4147908k total, 2208892k used, 1939016k free, 92352k buffers Swap: 0k total, 0k used, 0k free, 1493516k cached
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ P COMMAND 642 myuser 40 0 1595m 46m 7980 S 10.8 1.2 0:15.20 1 WinRAR.exe 640 myuser 40 0 1595m 46m 7980 S 9.8 1.2 0:15.21 1 WinRAR.exe 646 myuser 40 0 1595m 46m 7980 S 9.8 1.2 0:15.20 0 WinRAR.exe 650 myuser 40 0 1595m 46m 7980 S 9.8 1.2 0:15.20 0 WinRAR.exe 654 myuser 40 0 1595m 46m 7980 S 9.8 1.2 0:15.20 0 WinRAR.exe 656 myuser 40 0 1595m 46m 7980 S 9.8 1.2 0:15.19 0 WinRAR.exe 583 myuser 40 0 1595m 46m 7980 S 8.8 1.2 0:51.39 1 WinRAR.exe 639 myuser 40 0 1595m 46m 7980 S 8.8 1.2 0:13.87 0 WinRAR.exe 641 myuser 40 0 1595m 46m 7980 S 8.8 1.2 0:13.85 1 WinRAR.exe 645 myuser 40 0 1595m 46m 7980 S 8.8 1.2 0:13.86 1 WinRAR.exe 649 myuser 40 0 1595m 46m 7980 S 8.8 1.2 0:13.86 0 WinRAR.exe 653 myuser 40 0 1595m 46m 7980 S 8.8 1.2 0:13.86 0 WinRAR.exe 644 myuser 40 0 1595m 46m 7980 R 7.9 1.2 0:15.19 1 WinRAR.exe 648 myuser 40 0 1595m 46m 7980 S 7.9 1.2 0:15.20 0 WinRAR.exe 652 myuser 40 0 1595m 46m 7980 S 7.9 1.2 0:15.20 1 WinRAR.exe 655 myuser 40 0 1595m 46m 7980 S 7.9 1.2 0:13.86 1 WinRAR.exe 643 myuser 40 0 1595m 46m 7980 R 6.9 1.2 0:13.85 0 WinRAR.exe 647 myuser 40 0 1595m 46m 7980 S 6.9 1.2 0:13.85 0 WinRAR.exe 651 myuser 40 0 1595m 46m 7980 S 6.9 1.2 0:13.84 1 WinRAR.exe 1399 root 40 0 567m 45m 9m S 2.9 1.1 16:55.70 1 X 586 myuser 40 0 5352 2640 640 S 1.0 0.1 0:02.15 1 wineserver
I don't have enough knowledge to comment upon this observation, but something is probably wrong here.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11364
Artem S. Tashkinov t.artem@mailcity.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|WinRar doesn't fully |WinRar doesn't fully |utilize two CPU cores in |utilize CPU cores in |multithreading mode |multithreading (SMP) mode
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11364
Artem S. Tashkinov t.artem@mailcity.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |performance
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11364
--- Comment #23 from Artem S. Tashkinov t.artem@mailcity.com 2011-02-15 17:38:14 CST --- On a 4 cores system WinRAR 3.93 CPU utilization under Linux is just ~200% (vs maximum theoretical 400%).
I'm running Wine 1.3.13, Linux kernel 2.6.38-rc4 (PAE enabled), Fedora 14 i686.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11364
JuanPabloCuervo audioprof2002@hotmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |audioprof2002@hotmail.com
--- Comment #24 from JuanPabloCuervo audioprof2002@hotmail.com 2011-09-07 12:38:19 CDT --- http://forum.winehq.org/viewtopic.php?t=13386
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11364
--- Comment #25 from Artem S. Tashkinov t.artem@mailcity.com 2011-09-07 13:29:08 CDT --- (In reply to comment #24)
You have to install *64bit Wine* in order to run 64bit versions of 7-Zip and WinRar.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11364
Ken Sharp kennybobs@o2.co.uk changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |28369
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11364
Bug 11364 depends on bug 28369, which changed state.
Bug 28369 Summary: WinRar 3.93 installer crashes after starting http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=28369
What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution| |FIXED
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11364
André H. nerv@dawncrow.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |nerv@dawncrow.de
--- Comment #26 from André H. nerv@dawncrow.de 2011-12-19 12:23:52 CST --- (In reply to comment #23)
On a 4 cores system WinRAR 3.93 CPU utilization under Linux is just ~200% (vs maximum theoretical 400%).
I'm running Wine 1.3.13, Linux kernel 2.6.38-rc4 (PAE enabled), Fedora 14 i686.
what does windows do on this machine?
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11364
--- Comment #27 from Artem S. Tashkinov t.artem@mailcity.com 2011-12-19 12:33:46 CST --- (In reply to comment #26)
(In reply to comment #23)
On a 4 cores system WinRAR 3.93 CPU utilization under Linux is just ~200% (vs maximum theoretical 400%).
I'm running Wine 1.3.13, Linux kernel 2.6.38-rc4 (PAE enabled), Fedora 14 i686.
what does windows do on this machine?
Bugzilla is not a place for devotees. Use FB, G+, forums, blogs, etc. to express your opinion. Here we have a technical discussion.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11364
--- Comment #28 from André H. nerv@dawncrow.de 2011-12-19 12:39:01 CST --- (In reply to comment #27)
(In reply to comment #26)
(In reply to comment #23)
On a 4 cores system WinRAR 3.93 CPU utilization under Linux is just ~200% (vs maximum theoretical 400%).
I'm running Wine 1.3.13, Linux kernel 2.6.38-rc4 (PAE enabled), Fedora 14 i686.
what does windows do on this machine?
Bugzilla is not a place for devotees. Use FB, G+, forums, blogs, etc. to express your opinion. Here we have a technical discussion.
You only posted the Linux results, so having the windows ones would be nice. Please stop being that agressiv on a professional platform.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11364
--- Comment #29 from Artem S. Tashkinov t.artem@mailcity.com 2011-12-19 13:16:30 CST --- (In reply to comment #28)
You only posted the Linux results, so having the windows ones would be nice. Please stop being that agressiv on a professional platform.
comment #6, comment #9, comment #10, comment #12, comment #13 amongst others.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11364
--- Comment #30 from André H. nerv@dawncrow.de 2011-12-19 13:28:59 CST --- (In reply to comment #29)
(In reply to comment #28)
You only posted the Linux results, so having the windows ones would be nice. Please stop being that agressiv on a professional platform.
comment #6, comment #9, comment #10, comment #12, comment #13 amongst others.
that are other machines, i was interested in the results of a 4 cores system. If you state it uses 2 cores on linux than this bug is maybe fixed if winrar behaves the same on 4 cores windows 32-bit
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11364
--- Comment #31 from Artem S. Tashkinov t.artem@mailcity.com 2011-12-19 13:52:16 CST --- Created attachment 38032 --> http://bugs.winehq.org/attachment.cgi?id=38032 WinRAR 4.01 Windows XP 4 cores CPU
(In reply to comment #30)
(In reply to comment #29)
(In reply to comment #28)
You only posted the Linux results, so having the windows ones would be nice. Please stop being that agressiv on a professional platform.
comment #6, comment #9, comment #10, comment #12, comment #13 amongst others.
that are other machines, i was interested in the results of a 4 cores system. If you state it uses 2 cores on linux than this bug is maybe fixed if winrar behaves the same on 4 cores windows 32-bit
Here we go.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11364
--- Comment #32 from Artem S. Tashkinov t.artem@mailcity.com 2011-12-19 13:52:49 CST --- Created attachment 38033 --> http://bugs.winehq.org/attachment.cgi?id=38033 WinRAR 4.01 Linux 3.2.0-rc6 4 cores CPU
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11364
--- Comment #33 from Artem S. Tashkinov t.artem@mailcity.com 2011-12-19 13:53:22 CST --- Created attachment 38034 --> http://bugs.winehq.org/attachment.cgi?id=38034 `top` output for `WinRAR 4.01 Linux 3.2.0-rc6 4 cores CPU`
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11364
--- Comment #34 from Ken Sharp kennybobs@o2.co.uk 2012-06-27 01:17:53 CDT --- Still present in wine-1.5.7-114-gd079b66
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11364
Artem S. Tashkinov t.artem@mailcity.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|WinRar doesn't fully |WinRar doesn't fully |utilize CPU cores in |utilize CPU cores in the |multithreading (SMP) mode |multithreaded (SMP) mode
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11364
Ken Sharp imwellcushtymelike@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Severity|normal |trivial
--- Comment #35 from Ken Sharp imwellcushtymelike@gmail.com --- Still present in Wine 1.7.33.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11364
Artem S. Tashkinov t.artem@mailcity.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #36 from Artem S. Tashkinov t.artem@mailcity.com --- It's been long resolved.
Nowdays WinRAR 5.21 runs even faster in Wine than in Windows 7.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11364
Alexandre Julliard julliard@winehq.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RESOLVED |CLOSED
--- Comment #37 from Alexandre Julliard julliard@winehq.org --- Closing bugs fixed in 1.7.41.
-
wine-bugs＠winehq.org