On Sunday 24 May 2009 21:37:45 Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote: > On Sun, 24 May 2009 10:26:23 +0200 > > David Naylor <naylor.b.da...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sunday 24 May 2009 00:16:37 Maho NAKATA wrote: > > > Hi I tested it yesterday, > > > > > > 1. > > > I need > > > > > > > MAKE_JOBS_SAFE= yes > > > > > > in the Makefile. > > > > Yes, you would need that. I believe that will be default. > > > > > 2. with above patch, ooo2 doesn't launch parallele jobs. > > > > I spotted that problem after submitting the patch, if you explicitly > > set MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER to something it will work. > > > > The problem is that ooo2 does (in effect): > > .if (${MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER} > 1) > > # Stuff > > .else > > # Other stuff > > .endif > > and that doesn't work as expected with MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER=`sysctl > > kern.smp.cpus` as the command is not resolved. > > w/o patch > editors/openoffice.org-3 openoffice.org-3.1.0 4:53:27 > > with patch: > + MAKE_JOBS_SAFE= yes > + MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER= 4 > + MAXPROCESSES?= ${MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER} > + MAXMODULES?= ${MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER} > > editors/openoffice.org-3 openoffice.org-3.1.0 48:51 > > The build is done in > /dev/md0 on /usr/local/tinderbox/7-STABLE-FPT-NPD (ufs, asynchronous, > local, noatime)
Wow, that is quite a speedup. Is it even possible (4 * 60 + 53)/4 = 73, and you get 48 (that is 152% scaling efficiency). This would mean a serious performance problem with the ooo3 build script and MAX* =1. I'll make a patch tonight (+10 hours) that will fix ooo2 in the default case. You can test ooo2 with patch and MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER preset (not using default value) and MAKE_JOBS_SAFE=yes. Thanks for testing
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.