On Friday, 12 May 2023 00:08:03 BST Mark Knecht wrote: > On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 3:07 PM Peter Humphrey <pe...@prh.myzen.co.uk> > > wrote: > > On Thursday, 11 May 2023 17:18:17 BST Mark Knecht wrote: > <SNIP> > > > > The ''problem' is this can easily hit 100% of the cores you have in the > > > machine if not sensibly set. (You choose what's 'sensible') > > > > Once again, --load-average is being ignored. Why is it there? Surely, it > > must be to mitigate the worst effects of that N*K, but it isn't doing so. > > From your description, yeah, it's weird, but possibly it's managing it over > (for instance) over much longer time frames or something like that. > > Or possibly it just doesn't work.
That's it, I'm sure. > Or possibly whoever wrote the man page misunderstood. Load-average has been around for a long time. > Poking around a bit this morning I took the path at the bottom of the > link I gave you to the Portage niceness page. It says scheduling policy > control started with portage-3.0.35 which on paper sounds sort of recent. > Possibly a bug crept in, but I was curious as to what you have for > PORTAGE_SCHEDULING_POLICY, if any, and whether you need to enable some > sort of scheduling to get this under control? > > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Portage_niceness I have no PORTAGE_SCHEDULING_POLICY, or not that I can find. It seems to me that such a policy is to do with the running of portage in the OS, rather than how it launches its own emerge jobs. Is that right? > Anyway, I feel for ya. :) -- Regards, Peter.
