1 |
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 5:39 AM, <covici@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
2 |
> Mick <michaelkintzios@×××××.com> wrote: |
3 |
> |
4 |
>> On Saturday 26 Nov 2011 15:22:15 Michael Mol wrote: |
5 |
>> > I just wanted to share an experience I had today with optimizing parallel |
6 |
>> > builds after discovering "-l" for Make... |
7 |
>> > |
8 |
>> > I've got a little more tweaking I still want to do, but this is pretty |
9 |
>> > awesome... |
10 |
>> > |
11 |
>> > http://funnybutnot.wordpress.com/2011/11/26/optimizing-parallel-builds/ |
12 |
>> > |
13 |
>> > ZZ |
14 |
>> |
15 |
>> Thanks for sharing! How do you determine the optimum value for -l? |
16 |
> |
17 |
> How do you get emerge not to display number of jobs and load average -- |
18 |
|
19 |
The display is something emerge will show you if you've asked it to |
20 |
build in parallel (which you did, by passing -j to emerge. That's |
21 |
different from putting -j in MAKEOPTS.) |
22 |
|
23 |
> I only want to compile one at a time -- much safer that way and it is |
24 |
> doing that, |
25 |
|
26 |
It's likely only doing that because there isn't anything it can |
27 |
immediately build that doesn't have what it's *currently* working on |
28 |
as a build dependency. I noted in my blog post that emerge's |
29 |
parallelization has many of the same limitations as make's that's one |
30 |
of the things I was talking about; there can be linchpin and keystone |
31 |
packages which need to be built before many others. libc would be an |
32 |
example. gcc is a frequent example. |
33 |
|
34 |
> but now it displays all that load average and how many jobs, |
35 |
> etc. -- any way to get rid of that display? |
36 |
|
37 |
Forget the display; it sounds like you don't want emerge building in |
38 |
parallel. In that event, don't pass "-j" to emerge. The display will |
39 |
go away. |
40 |
|
41 |
-- |
42 |
:wq |