I was mistaken. LibreSSL does not like parallel install
libressl fails on `make -j4 install` · Issue #461 ·
libressl-portable/portable (github.com)
<https://github.com/libressl-portable/portable/issues/461>
anyway, if CI works, I'm ok with changes
чт, 10 июн. 2021 г. в 20:49, William Lallemand <wlallem...@haproxy.com>:
> On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 07:52:23AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > Subject: Re: Speeding up opentracing build in CI ?
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 07:19:37AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 10:15:46AM +0500, ???? ??????? wrote:
> > > > OT takes about 30 sec (it is built with almost everything disabled).
> the
> > > > biggest time eater is openssl-3.0.0
> > >
> > > Maybe that one could be sped up too, I haven't checked if it uses
> parallel
> > > builds.
> >
> > So I checked. Good news, it wasn't parallel either, and this alone:
> >
> > --- a/scripts/build-ssl.sh
> > +++ b/scripts/build-ssl.sh
> > @@ -21,7 +21,8 @@ build_openssl_linux () {
> > (
> > cd "openssl-${OPENSSL_VERSION}/"
> > ./config shared --prefix="${HOME}/opt"
> --openssldir="${HOME}/opt" -DPURIFY
> > - make all install_sw
> > + make -j$(nproc) all
> > + make install_sw
> > )
> > }
> >
> > Is enough to drop from 4:52 to 1:28 on my machine. About 1/4 of this time
> > is used to build man and HTML pages that we don't use. Instead of the
> "all"
> > target, we should use "build_sw"
> >
> > --- a/scripts/build-ssl.sh
> > +++ b/scripts/build-ssl.sh
> > @@ -21,7 +21,8 @@ build_openssl_linux () {
> > (
> > cd "openssl-${OPENSSL_VERSION}/"
> > ./config shared --prefix="${HOME}/opt"
> --openssldir="${HOME}/opt" -DPURIFY
> > - make all install_sw
> > + make -j$(nproc) build_sw
> > + make install_sw
> > )
> > }
> >
> > this further downs the time to 1:9, hence more than 4 times faster than
> > the initial one. It should probably be tested on macos to be certain it's
> > OK there as well, and I don't know how to get the CPU count there (or
> > maybe we could just force it to a low value like 2 or 4).
> >
> > Willy
> >
>
> Looks fine to me, but from what I remember when debugging some reg-tests
> there was only one CPU available, I hope I'm wrong.
>
> --
> William Lallemand
>
