On Sunday, 7 January 2024 00:54:12 GMT Adam Carter wrote:
> > > So if it's consistently gcc that collapses to two threads, then
> > > something (maybe explicit settings, maybe dependencies, maybe yadda
> > > yadda) is telling make that only two jobs can run at the same time else
> > > they'll trip
>
> > So if it's consistently gcc that collapses to two threads, then
> > something (maybe explicit settings, maybe dependencies, maybe yadda
> > yadda) is telling make that only two jobs can run at the same time else
> > they'll trip over each other.
> >
> > Could be a dev has hard-coded the "two
On Saturday, 6 January 2024 19:31:59 GMT Wols Lists wrote:
> On 06/01/2024 17:52, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> >> In other cases, there may be a hundred separate tasks, make fires off a
> >> hundred tasks shared amongst all the resource it can find, and sits back
> >> and waits.
> >
> > And that's how
On 06/01/2024 17:52, Peter Humphrey wrote:
In other cases, there may be a hundred separate tasks, make fires off a
hundred tasks shared amongst all the resource it can find, and sits back
and waits.
And that's how the very first installation goes, with single-host distcc. Then,
when it gets
On Saturday, 6 January 2024 15:28:53 GMT Wols Lists wrote:
> As far as I'm aware, there's no mystery. On a single machine you get the
> exact same thing ... it's all down to parallelism.
>
> Make asks itself "how many separate tasks can I do at the same time,
> which won't interfere with each
On 29/11/2023 12:06, Peter Humphreey wrote:
The contribution of distcc isn't clear to me yet, as I said before. Sometimes
it's the bee's knees; other times it might just as well not be there. I don't
like mysteries...
As far as I'm aware, there's no mystery. On a single machine you get the
On Saturday, 6 January 2024 11:44:20 GMT Michael wrote:
> On Wednesday, 29 November 2023 12:06:15 GMT Peter Humphreey wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 29 November 2023 10:26:36 GMT Michael wrote:
> > > Here's my hypothesis explaining your own observation with libreoffice.
> > > As
> > > a package or more
On Wednesday, 29 November 2023 12:06:15 GMT Peter Humphreey wrote:
> On Wednesday, 29 November 2023 10:26:36 GMT Michael wrote:
> > Here's my hypothesis explaining your own observation with libreoffice. As
> > a package or more finished emerging, libreoffice's turn comes up. Soon
> > libreoffice
On Wednesday, 29 November 2023 14:12:39 GMT John Blinka wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 10:39 AM Peter Humphreey
> wrote:l
>
> > What am I missing?
>
> I have much less powerful hardware than you but libreoffice (as a
> stand-alone build) generates many more threads than 4 on my “cluster”.
On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 10:39 AM Peter Humphreey
wrote:l
>
> What am I missing?
I have much less powerful hardware than you but libreoffice (as a
stand-alone build) generates many more threads than 4 on my “cluster”. I’m
also using distcc.
On the main box, I set
MAKEOPTS=“-j17 -l6”
On the
On Wednesday, 29 November 2023 10:26:36 GMT Michael wrote:
> Here's my hypothesis explaining your own observation with libreoffice. As a
> package or more finished emerging, libreoffice's turn comes up. Soon
> libreoffice starts to execute make jobs, but any of the following may
> apply:
>
>
On Monday, 27 November 2023 15:39:33 GMT Peter Humphreey wrote:
> Hello list,
>
> I still can't see how portage limits the load. Today I'm emerging
> libreoffice, and it's spending almost the whole time working with 4 CPU
> threads. But:
>
> $ grep -e '\-j' -e distcc /etc/portage/make.conf
>
Hello list,
I still can't see how portage limits the load. Today I'm emerging libreoffice,
and it's spending almost the whole time working with 4 CPU threads. But:
$ grep -e '\-j' -e distcc /etc/portage/make.conf
EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--jobs=18 --load-average=30 --backtrack=200 --
autounmask=n
13 matches
Mail list logo
