Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFC: Limit build parallelism by available memory too, add tunables (#804) (#821)

2020-02-04 Thread Panu Matilainen
This is broken and not going to go anywhere soon. I'll resubmit once fixed.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/821#issuecomment-581905200___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint


Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFC: Limit build parallelism by available memory too, add tunables (#804) (#821)

2020-02-04 Thread Panu Matilainen
Closed #821.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/821#event-3006041141___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint


Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFC: Limit build parallelism by available memory too, add tunables (#804) (#821)

2019-09-20 Thread Panu Matilainen
> Evidently better way is to emit an error.

No kidding? :joy: 


-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/821#issuecomment-533457065___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint


Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFC: Limit build parallelism by available memory too, add tunables (#804) (#821)

2019-08-30 Thread pavlinamv
> Yeah, known. Missing/wrong arguments to built-in macros are wildly 
> inconsistent in how they behave, some emit errors, some just fail silently 
> etc.

Evidently better way is to emit an error.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/821#issuecomment-526562551___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint


Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFC: Limit build parallelism by available memory too, add tunables (#804) (#821)

2019-08-30 Thread Panu Matilainen
> * The expansion of macro %{getmem:virt}" finishes with an error. It is 
> because getmem returns 0. This is caused by the fact that function 
> getmem_virt returns SIZE_MAX. After dividing by 1024^2 it is still to high to 
> fit into return_type of getmem (unsigned int).

Right. I probably only tested this in 32bit context where its more relevant. 
There might be more similar issues lurking (it's only an RFC for a reason)

> 
> * If there is a wrong parameter after '%{getmem:' , then no warning or 
> error is emitted

Yeah, known. Missing/wrong arguments to built-in macros are wildly inconsistent 
in how they behave, some emit errors, some just fail silently etc.

> * Why you use a new type of built-in macro synatx %{getmem:} instead of 
> something close to the existing built-in macros like %getmem_avail?

It's not a new syntax, it's a built-in with an argument like several others. I 
don't see a point of adding multiple macros that all return different aspects 
of the same thing, that's what a parameter is for. Purely a matter of style of 
course.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/821#issuecomment-526558715___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint


Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFC: Limit build parallelism by available memory too, add tunables (#804) (#821)

2019-08-30 Thread pavlinamv
I tested this PR on my laptop.

- The expansion of macro %{getmem:virt}" finishes with an error. It is because 
getmem returns 0. This is caused by the fact that function getmem_virt returns 
SIZE_MAX. After dividing by 1024^2 it is still to high to fit into return_type 
of getmem (unsigned int).  

- If there is a wrong parameter after '%{getmem:' , then no warning or error is 
emitted

- Why you use a new type of built-in macro synatx %{getmem:} instead of 
something close to the existing built-in macros like %getmem_avail?

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/821#issuecomment-526549042___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint


Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFC: Limit build parallelism by available memory too, add tunables (#804) (#821)

2019-08-28 Thread sharkcz
for the record, there are already packages like ceph or firefox that do their 
own heuristics, and I'm not sure it's always correct, so having a system way is 
definitely step in the right direction

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/821#issuecomment-525673262___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint