Date: Tue, 8 May 2001 10:25:56 -0400 (EDT) From: Mikhail Teterin <mi@aldan.algebra.com> To: knu@iDaemons.org Cc: will@physics.purdue.edu, sobomax@FreeBSD.org, eric@FreeBSD.org, kris@obsecurity.org, kris@FreeBSD.org, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: port policies Message-ID: <200105081426.f48EPxt72473@aldan.algebra.com> In-Reply-To: <867kzsn15q.wl@archon.local.idaemons.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 8 May, Akinori MUSHA wrote:
>> On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 01:51:18AM +0300, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
>> > In summary: I'm all for adding PARALLEL_SAFE but think that
>> > default number of jobs should be 1.
> Okay, use this new patch then.
> +# MAKE_JOBS_SAFE - Says that the port is safe to build with make -jN.
I think, the ``MAKE_JOBS_SAFE'' is not well worded. I'd suggest
something like "PARALLEL_BUILD" or "PARALLEL_SAFE".
How about something like:
.if defined(PARALLEL_SAFE)
.if !defined(MAX_JOBS)
MAX_JOBS!= echo $$((`sysctl -n hw.ncpu`*2))
.endif
MAKE_ARGS+=-j${MAX_JOBS}
.endif
This also allows one to force MAX_JOBS to a certain number (higher or
lower than double the number of CPUs). Yes, I still think the default
amount should be more than one and Max -- the apparent opponent did not
produce a convincing argument yet:
No way! The default should be exctly 1 job, no matter how many
processors one has. If you think that you have enough CPU/memory
you can always increase that limit.
Well, if you think you do NOT have enough memory (CPU is hardly relevant,
it is still faster than harddrives), you can always decrease that limit.
All/most optimizations are done to work better in the _average_
case, while still working acceptably in the worst cases. It remains
my believe, that -j2 on a single-CPU machine will _always_ work,
and on _average_ will work better. I'll be interested in seeing a
counter-example, but I must ask for NOT mentioning Redmond in any
rebbutals. Note, that simply working slower with -j2 does not qualify.
As revolutionary as this change may appear, it is not. And, it will only
affect the ports, where a maintainer bothered to add the PARALLEL_SAFE
flag (or whatever we name it).
--
|\__-----__/|
_____/ ::::: :::\_____
'__--( ::::::::..::)--__` -mi
If you have a / _- \/ :::::::\/ -_
serious knowledge / / :. .::::\ \
about computers -- | ::::::::::::| Ok, let's say you broke
keep it in a secret! _|/ ::::____::\|_ the wall with your head
"Rules of dating", / /:::::/:_::\::\:.\ What are you going to
'Playboy', ? 1994 | :| ..:(_/ \::|::|::| do in the next cell?
| :|:::::. ::|: |::|.:| Stanislaw J. Lec
\ |:: :::_/::/: :|:/
((___\____\____/___/___))
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200105081426.f48EPxt72473>