> Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 19:08:06 +0400
> From: "Dmitry V. Levin"
>
> gnulib has a nproc module that can "detect the number of processors":
> http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/gnulib.git/tree/modules/nproc
> Judging from the number of #if's in its implementation it must be quite
> portable. :)
Bu
> From: Paul Smith
> Cc: warner.w...@hp.com, Bug-make@gnu.org
> Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 09:35:18 -0500
>
> On Fri, 2012-12-14 at 17:07 +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Does it even make sense to use -j with no arguments? Should we
> > perhaps remove that possibility, or have some internal sane lim
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 09:35:18AM -0500, Paul Smith wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-12-14 at 17:07 +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Does it even make sense to use -j with no arguments? Should we
> > perhaps remove that possibility, or have some internal sane limit,
> > like twice the number of cores, say?
>
On Fri, 2012-12-14 at 17:07 +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> Does it even make sense to use -j with no arguments? Should we
> perhaps remove that possibility, or have some internal sane limit,
> like twice the number of cores, say?
In general I'd say no, the current behavior is not ideal. However I
> Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 20:37:54 +0400
> From: "Dmitry V. Levin"
>
> > > make: More parallel jobs (-jN) than this platform can handle
> > > requested.
> > > make: Resetting to single job (-j1) mode.
> >
> > I see no message like this in the current Make sources. Maybe I'm
> > missing
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 05:50:17PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > From: "Wang, Warner"
> > CC: "Bug-make@gnu.org"
> > Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 15:42:04 +
> >
> > btw there is an internal limit, which is 4096 jobs, either on my mainframe
> > or PC. If I use "-j 4097" it will complain:
> >
> From: "Wang, Warner"
> CC: "Bug-make@gnu.org"
> Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 15:42:04 +
>
> btw there is an internal limit, which is 4096 jobs, either on my mainframe or
> PC. If I use "-j 4097" it will complain:
> [root@lion linux-3.3.0-0.20.el7]# make -j 4097
> make: More parallel jo
ssage-
From: Eli Zaretskii [mailto:e...@gnu.org]
Sent: 2012年12月14日 PM 11:07
To: psm...@gnu.org
Cc: Wang, Warner; Bug-make@gnu.org
Subject: Re: need help on "make -j" parameter, it will let the system hung
easily.
> From: Paul Smith
> Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 09:59:31 -0500
> From: Paul Smith
> Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 09:59:31 -0500
> Cc: "Bug-make@gnu.org"
>
> This basically says that if you use "-j" with no arguments, make will
> run as many jobs as the _makefile_ allows (defined by your prerequisite
> rules). It pays no attention to the limits of your system.
>
On Fri, 2012-12-14 at 12:45 +, Wang, Warner wrote:
> Hello everyone, make experts,
>
> when I use "make -j" (without specifying a number after it) to compile
> Linux kernel, it will always make my machine hung, get no response at
> all and the kernel's watchdog (khungtaskd) will complain beca
Hello everyone, make experts,
when I use "make -j" (without specifying a number after it) to compile Linux
kernel, it will always make my machine hung, get no response at all and the
kernel's watchdog (khungtaskd) will complain because there are processes in
TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE status for 120
11 matches
Mail list logo
