From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0752A138010 for ; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 17:10:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id F3F7FE06EE; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 17:09:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B2CA21C075 for ; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 17:07:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.42.77] (staff-wireless.saddleback.edu [209.129.85.50]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: zmedico) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C4B9133CDC6 for ; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 17:07:31 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <504F6FD2.2050501@gentoo.org> Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 10:07:30 -0700 From: Zac Medico User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686 on x86_64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120901 Thunderbird/15.0 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] EJOBS variable for EAPI 5? References: <20544.29691.208130.35494@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <20120831154521.5258c549@googlemail.com> <20120831111244.0c17b8aa@gentoo.org> <20120902002002.GB25302@localhost> <20120904110041.GA19158@waltdnes.org> <50463738.7000209@gentoo.org> <504F6884.9000201@gmail.com> <504F6A21.4080709@gentoo.org> <504F6CB1.4030500@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <504F6CB1.4030500@gentoo.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 7a7f71ba-8b99-4b42-9957-207a2ddbf322 X-Archives-Hash: 6b53b5484651f92bbde7ac3597cc08d7 On 09/11/2012 09:54 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > On 11/09/12 12:43 PM, Zac Medico wrote: >> On 09/11/2012 09:36 AM, vivo75@gmail.com wrote: >>> Dunno where to place this request, but if we go for something >>> like EJOBS could we also make it phase specific? So compile, >>> install and test could have a different number of jobs running. >>> Possibly three different variables that override a predefined >>> EJOBS. > >> Per-phase sounds a little to fine-grained. Instead, I'd suggest to >> add an ELOADAVG variable that's analogous to make's --load-average >> option. That should be enough to compensate for any differences >> between phases. > > I personally wonder about why this would be necessary from the > perspective of the user; if the user's system at emerge time can > handle X concurrent processes per emerge-job , i don't see why it > would matter what phase these jobs would be launched from. Right, what matters is the system load, which is why I suggested ELOADAVG. > At the ebuild level, certainly, but that's one of the reasons for > EJOBS in the first place, so that it can be overridden consistently > within a phase, if necessary for the ebuild (regardless of build > system type), right? Right. I'm surprised that ELOADAVG wasn't proposed in tandem with EJOBS though, since overloading is not a good idea, and can happen easily any time that you doing lots of things in parallel. -- Thanks, Zac