On 2017-04-04 15:10, Erik Joelsson wrote:
Hello,
On 2017-04-04 14:59, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
What is the intention here? You want build the second part of the
boot cycle build without setting -j? Is this because we already have
a good value of -j inherited from an earlier make call?
We only want to set the -j flag once since resetting it in a sub make
call causes us to loose the job server. If there was some other way of
detecting that we are in a wrapped call, that would certainly help.
There are ways of detecting if we're in a recursive call, but they too
tend to be scary to check. :)
The fix looks scary, but that's maybe because all of this
make-wrapping logic is scary.
What if you keep sending JOBS= and then check if JOBS has a value in
Init.gmk, instead of introducing DISABLE_JOBS?
I considered that, but then we lose the currently valid empty value
for JOBS, which today translates to -j without argument. One could
argue that it's rarely a good idea to let make just go crazy with
processes though and in that case we can choose to interpret JOBS=""
as don't set -j at all.
I don't think we've really had that as a supported option, have we? We
set JOBS in the spec.gmk based on configure's idea of the ideal number
of jobs for the machine. This idea here is to more or less take control
from make, which we don't trust to make that decision. So unless the
user explicitly sets JOBS= on the command line, this is not a situation
that would occur otherwise. I thought we even checked that JOBS had a
valid number in it, but I couldn't find such a check now so maybe I just
dreamed that one.
/Magnus
/Erik
/Magnus
On 2017-04-04 14:19, Erik Joelsson wrote:
Hello Alex,
It wasn't a typo, but it was also not correct, as you are pointing
out. Setting JOBS to $(JOBS) would disable the jobserver for the sub
make process and also risk flooding a smaller system. What we really
need is a way to block the setting of -j in the "Init.gmk main"
target. Something like this seems to work for me:
diff -r 7810f75d016a make/Init.gmk
--- a/make/Init.gmk
+++ b/make/Init.gmk
@@ -303,7 +303,8 @@
$(call PrepareSmartJavac)
( cd $(TOPDIR) && \
$(NICE) $(MAKE) $(MAKE_ARGS) $(OUTPUT_SYNC_FLAG) \
- -j $(JOBS) -f make/Main.gmk $(USER_MAKE_VARS) \
+ $(if $(DISABLE_JOBS),, -j $(JOBS)) \
+ -f make/Main.gmk $(USER_MAKE_VARS) \
$(PARALLEL_TARGETS) $(COMPARE_BUILD_MAKE)
$(BUILD_LOG_PIPE) || \
( exitcode=$$? && \
$(PRINTF) "\nERROR: Build failed for
$(TARGET_DESCRIPTION) (exit code $$exitcode) \n" \
diff -r 7810f75d016a make/Main.gmk
--- a/make/Main.gmk
+++ b/make/Main.gmk
@@ -320,7 +320,7 @@
ifneq ($(COMPILE_TYPE), cross)
$(call LogWarn, Boot cycle build step 2: Building a new JDK
image using previously built image)
+$(MAKE) $(MAKE_ARGS) -f $(SRC_ROOT)/make/Init.gmk
PARALLEL_TARGETS=$(BOOTCYCLE_TARGET) \
- JOBS= SPEC=$(dir $(SPEC))bootcycle-spec.gmk main
+ DISABLE_JOBS=true SPEC=$(dir $(SPEC))bootcycle-spec.gmk main
else
$(call LogWarn, Boot cycle build disabled when cross compiling)
endif
/Erik
On 2017-04-04 13:26, Alex Kashchenko wrote:
Hi,
Currently in jdk9 bootcycle-images make target is executed with
unlimited number of make jobs. May I ask whether "JOBS=" bit here
[1] is intentional or just a typo and should be "JOBS=$(JOBS)"
instead?
Current variant works on x86_64 but crashes with native arm32 boot
cycle builds - compilation tasks are spawned faster than being
executed.
[1]
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/jdk9/file/41d9f0545d53/make/Main.gmk#l323
