| 1 |
On Thursday, 16 February 2023 12:23:52 GMT Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
--->8 Much useful detail. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
That all makes perfect sense, and is what I'd assumed, but it's good to have |
| 6 |
it confirmed. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
> The load average setting is definitely useful and I would definitely |
| 9 |
> set it, but when the issue is swapping it doesn't go far enough. Make |
| 10 |
> has no idea how much memory a gcc process will require. Since that is |
| 11 |
> the resource likely causing problems it is hard to efficiently max out |
| 12 |
> your cores without actually accounting for memory use. The best I've |
| 13 |
> been able to do is just set things conservatively so it never gets out |
| 14 |
> of control, and underutilizes CPU in the process. Often it is only |
| 15 |
> parts of a build that even have issues - something big like chromium |
| 16 |
> might have 10,000 tasks that would run fine with -j16 or whatever, but |
| 17 |
> then there is this one part where the jobs all want a ton of RAM and |
| 18 |
> you need to run just that one part at a lower setting. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I've just looked at 'man make', from which it's clear that -j = --jobs, and |
| 21 |
that both those and --load-average are passed to /usr/bin/make, presumably |
| 22 |
untouched unless portage itself has identically named variables. So I wonder |
| 23 |
how feasible it might be for make to incorporate its own checks to ensure that |
| 24 |
the load average is not exceeded. I am not a programmer (not for at least 35 |
| 25 |
years, anyway), so I have to leave any such suggestion to the experts. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Regards, |
| 29 |
Peter. |
Archives