On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 2:59 PM Dan Eble <d...@faithful.be> wrote: > > On Feb 23, 2020, at 06:08, Han-Wen Nienhuys <hanw...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I think we should do both: the lilypond runs in lp-book should be > > protected by some sort of lock, and we should use both CPU_COUNT=M and > > -jN. > > > > then worst case, you have M lilypond processes and N-1 other jobs. > > What would you recommend to a developer who doesn't want to run more than J = > M + N - 1 concurrent jobs due to lilypond development? What values of M and > N would serve best?
Normally M=N= #cpus should be OK. A bit of extra parallelism doesn't hurt, especially if you have hyperthreaded CPUs. > > So wouldn't it appear that the way to exploit parallelism with > > lilypond-book, short of writing its own jobserver, is to use CPU_COUNT > > like we did before? > > Making lilypond-book a client of the GNU make job server sounds like an > option. > > "Sharing Job Slots with GNU make" > https://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/html_node/Job-Slots.html This looks hairy, because it's not lilypond-book but lilypond itself that starts up the jobs, so you have plumb through the jobserver support. -- Han-Wen Nienhuys - hanw...@gmail.com - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen
