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 107FE138010 for ; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 19:18:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C1A9121C047; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 19:17:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ee0-f53.google.com (mail-ee0-f53.google.com [74.125.83.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8B7721C028 for ; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 19:17:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: by eekb47 with SMTP id b47so731063eek.40 for ; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 12:17:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=VqTTsh03P6+Tk/Oabn6jNkwtx+moAqyb0KeT84XOTTQ=; b=iVB+B+yhbOIzdJ6eqYWv2nj5W07rV2j3BhBi4iAgPNE4h1q+Ja3Evb0yQfEsr2gN56 PUmCSlnDNxof7Kh3NoevIHkCTjwYjHiekDy7RAysF++GkxftZs1a1Ym1cvDJR2BCjDKW nKrA7++/wAKrICFBm9Fyq/HLeLFVlEdpFceis+y4AqiIA4RsNdv8orIF1476y8QXjC+0 RXrwClwbkOrCfZ+K/jtXkI2nvVeK0MOtLjRL552IpI+nFrOmY/uUXmOJeEvf+k6Tuyqt j/s9vpSM2SzwpVirOa/8KUNFxKHvbPFsZXvh1pMdp9opjS7jQRzdcG95rpmohVQT4jvc Cc9Q== 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 Received: by 10.204.155.146 with SMTP id s18mr5246416bkw.23.1347391016509; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 12:16:56 -0700 (PDT) Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.205.65.136 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 12:16:56 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <504F6FD2.2050501@gentoo.org> 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> <504F6FD2.2050501@gentoo.org> Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 15:16:56 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 5B1ObKaxL_eeDKyRjs72PN1GjRM Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] EJOBS variable for EAPI 5? From: Rich Freeman To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Archives-Salt: 11683d2b-6e86-4e17-8d1d-b8b32a222e3d X-Archives-Hash: 2af57dd2e708b301e6acfbf769c78cbc On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Zac Medico wrote: > On 09/11/2012 09:54 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: >> 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. I tend to agree that load average matters more, although that doesn't factor in RAM use. I don't suggest that this is something that is easily remedied, but I have run into a situation where WHAT you're doing greatly influences how many jobs you can run - distcc. I once tried to implement distcc in a fairly large cluster, and then run make with VERY high levels of parallelization - such as -j32. That worked great - if the package used C. Then portage would try to build something that used ant and suddenly the host was trying to run 32 jvms in parallel - just killing the system. Ditto for python/etc. There was no way to tell the build system to go nuts with anything using distcc but not everything else. I think this is just a fundamental limitation of make - I don't suggest that we can fix this at the portage level. However, that is a use case where WHAT you're doing influences how many jobs you can run. Rich