Hi,
Currently, BB_NUMBER_THREADS and PARALLEL_MAKE use the number of cores
available unless told otherwise. This was a good idea six years
ago[1] but some modern machines are moving to very large core counts.
For example, 88 core dual Xeons are fairly common. A ThunderX2 has 256
cores (2 sockets
I'd rather teach bitbake to abstain from starting new tasks when I/O or CPU
gets tight.
Alex
On Thu, 3 Dec 2020 at 18:48, Ross Burton wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Currently, BB_NUMBER_THREADS and PARALLEL_MAKE use the number of cores
> available unless told otherwise. This was a good idea six years
> ago[
On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 9:48 AM Ross Burton wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Currently, BB_NUMBER_THREADS and PARALLEL_MAKE use the number of cores
> available unless told otherwise. This was a good idea six years
> ago[1] but some modern machines are moving to very large core counts.
>
> For example, 88 core d
On Thu, 3 Dec 2020 at 17:48, Ross Burton wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Currently, BB_NUMBER_THREADS and PARALLEL_MAKE use the number of cores
> available unless told otherwise. This was a good idea six years
> ago[1] but some modern machines are moving to very large core counts.
>
> For example, 88 core dua
+1 for Alex's comment.
As I/O (and potentially RAM) is clearly the bottleneck here, limitation
to some arbitrary value doesn't address the issue at the right end.
I would rather see real resource management.
From my point of view there is a huge difference if I package like 128
shell scripts in
On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 9:48 AM Ross Burton wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Currently, BB_NUMBER_THREADS and PARALLEL_MAKE use the number of cores
> available unless told otherwise. This was a good idea six years
> ago[1] but some modern machines are moving to very large core counts.
>
> For example, 88 core d
On Thu, 2020-12-03 at 17:48 +, Ross Burton wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Currently, BB_NUMBER_THREADS and PARALLEL_MAKE use the number of
> cores
> available unless told otherwise. This was a good idea six years
> ago[1] but some modern machines are moving to very large core counts.
>
> For example, 88 c
Hi,
On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 05:48:16PM +, Ross Burton wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Currently, BB_NUMBER_THREADS and PARALLEL_MAKE use the number of cores
> available unless told otherwise. This was a good idea six years
> ago[1] but some modern machines are moving to very large core counts.
>
> For exa
On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 07:20:11PM +0100, Alexander Kanavin wrote:
> I'd rather teach bitbake to abstain from starting new tasks when I/O or CPU
> gets tight.
And memory!
-Mikko
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#145287):
https://list
Alexander Kanavin escreveu no dia quinta,
3/12/2020 à(s) 18:20:
> I'd rather teach bitbake to abstain from starting new tasks when I/O or
> CPU gets tight.
>
This is definitely the best approach in my view. however more complex to
implement.
Quaresma
> Alex
>
> On Thu, 3 Dec 2020 at 18:48, Ro
10 matches
Mail list logo
