On 5/12/23 09:46, Peter Humphrey wrote:
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.
:)
You can read /usr/share/portage/config/make.conf.example for an
explanation. All children processes will use that. I can run portage and
play games on the same system with my settings.
