On 09/11/2012 09:54 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > On 11/09/12 12:43 PM, Zac Medico wrote: >> On 09/11/2012 09:36 AM, viv...@gmail.com wrote: >>> Dunno where to place this request, but if we go for something >>> like EJOBS could we also make it phase specific? So compile, >>> install and test could have a different number of jobs running. >>> Possibly three different variables that override a predefined >>> EJOBS. > >> Per-phase sounds a little to fine-grained. Instead, I'd suggest to >> add an ELOADAVG variable that's analogous to make's --load-average >> option. That should be enough to compensate for any differences >> between phases. > > I personally wonder about why this would be necessary from the > perspective of the user; if the user's system at emerge time can > handle X concurrent processes per emerge-job , i don't see why it > would matter what phase these jobs would be launched from.
Right, what matters is the system load, which is why I suggested ELOADAVG. > At the ebuild level, certainly, but that's one of the reasons for > EJOBS in the first place, so that it can be overridden consistently > within a phase, if necessary for the ebuild (regardless of build > system type), right? Right. I'm surprised that ELOADAVG wasn't proposed in tandem with EJOBS though, since overloading is not a good idea, and can happen easily any time that you doing lots of things in parallel. -- Thanks, Zac
