From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 97DE4158089 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2023 12:41:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 03FA72BC184; Wed, 13 Sep 2023 12:41:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smarthost01a.sbp.mail.zen.net.uk (smarthost01a.sbp.mail.zen.net.uk [212.23.1.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B013A2BC058 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2023 12:41:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [82.69.80.10] (helo=wstn.localnet) by smarthost01a.sbp.mail.zen.net.uk with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qgPAz-0001ph-2k for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Wed, 13 Sep 2023 12:41:01 +0000 From: Peter Humphrey To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] long compiles Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2023 13:41:00 +0100 Message-ID: <4852301.GXAFRqVoOG@wstn> In-Reply-To: <9d4b190b-d35a-4fa5-8808-8c06e4c1e6e3@youngman.org.uk> References: <2913082.e9J7NaK4W3@wstn> <9d4b190b-d35a-4fa5-8808-8c06e4c1e6e3@youngman.org.uk> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Originating-smarthost01a-IP: [82.69.80.10] Feedback-ID: 82.69.80.10 X-Archives-Salt: 96f38d4c-eef5-413f-88a4-83bd4671c33c X-Archives-Hash: 6ea3341500037a1622f1c91ee112af91 On Wednesday, 13 September 2023 12:50:20 BST Wols Lists wrote: > On 13/09/2023 12:28, Peter Humphrey wrote: > > A thought on compiling, which I hope some devs will read: I was tempted to > > push the system hard at first, with load average and jobs as high as I > > thought I could set them. I've come to believe, though, that job control > > by portage and /usr/bin/make is weak at very high loads, because I would > > usually find that a few packages had failed to compile; also that some > > complex programs were sometimes unstable. Therefore I've had to throttle > > the system to be sure(r) of correctness. Seems a waste. > Bear in mind a lot of systems are thermally limited and can't run at > full pelt anyway ... No doubt, but apparently not this box: I run it 24x7 with all 24 CPU threads fully loaded with floating-point calculations, which make a good deal more heat than 'mere' compiling with (I assume) integer arithmetic. :) > You might find it's actually better (and more efficient) to run at lower > loading. Certainly following the kernel lists you get the impression > that the CPU regularly goes into thermal throttling under heavy load, > and also that using a couple of cores lightly is more efficient than > using one core heavily. See above; besides, I have to limit the load anyway when compiling, for the reasons I gave last time. > It's so difficult to know what's best ... (because too many people make > decisions based on their interests, and then when you come along their > decisions may conflict with each other and certainly conflict with you ...) I agree with you there Wol, even without the parenthesis. :) -- Regards, Peter.