Hi,
On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 05:57:05PM -0400, David Forsythe wrote:
> patch: http://dmz2.khome.utcorp.net/~dforsyth/port.mk-locks.diff
Since no one else seems to have commented, a few quick thoughts. I have
not actually tried your patch.
1. Is there any reason not to do the locking? Removing N
Pav Lucistnik wrote:
> Benjamin Lutz píše v út 10. 04. 2007 v 04:52 +0200:
>
> > Some time ago, after buying a Core 2 Duo system, I've become interested
> > in doing something about the inherent single-threadedness of the ports.
> > Even though I have a dualcore machine, ports builds only ever u
On Sat, Apr 14, 2007 at 07:12:21AM +0200, [LoN]Kamikaze wrote:
> Kris Kennaway wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 09:31:37PM +0200, [LoN]Kamikaze wrote:
> >
> >>> Btw, do you think it's possible that a port can only be built with, n
> >>> parallel make jobs, but will fail with n+1?
> >> No. I do
Kris Kennaway wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 09:31:37PM +0200, [LoN]Kamikaze wrote:
>
>>> Btw, do you think it's possible that a port can only be built with, n
>>> parallel make jobs, but will fail with n+1?
>> No. I do not think this can be the case.
>
> It certainly is the case. If a makefi
On Fri, Apr 13, 2007 at 04:51:33PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> My opinion is that there should be a threshold value empirically derived by
> the developer / retrieved by bug reports, as well as a knob, to specify the
> maximum number of parallel jobs to be used for a particular port, that
On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 09:31:37PM +0200, [LoN]Kamikaze wrote:
> > Btw, do you think it's possible that a port can only be built with, n
> > parallel make jobs, but will fail with n+1?
>
> No. I do not think this can be the case.
It certainly is the case. If a makefile has incorrectly specifie
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, David Nečas (Yeti) wrote:
On Fri, Apr 13, 2007 at 05:10:47PM +0200, Pav Lucistnik wrote:
Peter Pentchev píše v pá 13. 04. 2007 v 18:06 +0300:
>
> I was thinking about having it embedded in every port's Makefile
> directly, instead. Something like
>
> USE_MAKE_JOBS= 2
Peter Jeremy wrote:
> Can anyone come up with either examples of ports that fall into the
> second category above or counter-examples to my first paragraph?
I have used 'make -j' for quite some time, and to my experience it either works
or doesn't. I've never seen a port that works sometimes.
__
On 2007-Apr-13 17:43:54 +0200, "David Ne?as (Yeti)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>implements it. How many ports exist that can fail with N+1
>jobs yet cannot break with N jobs (for N > 1)?
As far as I can see, for a port to be safely built with N>1 jobs then
it needs to have proper dependency relat
On Fri, Apr 13, 2007 at 05:10:47PM +0200, Pav Lucistnik wrote:
> Peter Pentchev píše v pá 13. 04. 2007 v 18:06 +0300:
> > >
> > > I was thinking about having it embedded in every port's Makefile
> > > directly, instead. Something like
> > >
> > > USE_MAKE_JOBS=2
> >
> > IMHO, hardcoding the
Peter Pentchev píše v pá 13. 04. 2007 v 18:06 +0300:
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 07:44:47PM +0200, Pav Lucistnik wrote:
> > Benjamin Lutz p??e v ?t 10. 04. 2007 v 04:52 +0200:
> [snip]
> > > 3) Save this to /usr/local/etc/parallel_builds.conf:
> > > http://www.maxlor.com/temp/parallel_builds.c
On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 07:44:47PM +0200, Pav Lucistnik wrote:
> Benjamin Lutz p??e v ?t 10. 04. 2007 v 04:52 +0200:
[snip]
> > 3) Save this to /usr/local/etc/parallel_builds.conf:
> > http://www.maxlor.com/temp/parallel_builds.conf .
> > This is a list of ports as stored in PKGORIGIN,
On Thu, 2007-04-12 at 21:07 +0200, Benjamin Lutz wrote:
> On Thursday 12 April 2007 11:06, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> > I dunno how you want to approach this, but gmake does recommend 2
> > jobs be run in parallel for HTT enabled chips, and 3 or 4 jobs for a
> > dual core machines.
> > -Garrett
>
> S
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007, Benjamin Lutz wrote:
On Thursday 12 April 2007 22:20, Pav Lucistnik wrote:
Benjamin Lutz píše v čt 12. 04. 2007 v 21:07 +0200:
On Thursday 12 April 2007 11:06, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> I dunno how you want to approach this, but gmake does recommend 2
> jobs be run in parall
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007, [LoN]Kamikaze wrote:
Benjamin Lutz wrote:
On Thursday 12 April 2007 11:06, Garrett Cooper wrote:
I dunno how you want to approach this, but gmake does recommend 2
jobs be run in parallel for HTT enabled chips, and 3 or 4 jobs for a
dual core machines.
-Garrett
So far the
On Thursday 12 April 2007 22:20, Pav Lucistnik wrote:
> Benjamin Lutz píše v čt 12. 04. 2007 v 21:07 +0200:
> > On Thursday 12 April 2007 11:06, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> > > I dunno how you want to approach this, but gmake does recommend 2
> > > jobs be run in parallel for HTT enabled chips, and 3 o
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007, Benjamin Lutz wrote:
On Thursday 12 April 2007 18:32, [LoN]Kamikaze wrote:
Robert Noland wrote:
Have any of you looked at sysutils/bsdadminscripts, it's buildflags
options allow for parallel builds as well as ccache / distcc use.
I have a reasonable list of ports that m
Benjamin Lutz píše v čt 12. 04. 2007 v 21:07 +0200:
> On Thursday 12 April 2007 11:06, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> > I dunno how you want to approach this, but gmake does recommend 2
> > jobs be run in parallel for HTT enabled chips, and 3 or 4 jobs for a
> > dual core machines.
> > -Garrett
>
> So fa
Benjamin Lutz wrote:
> On Thursday 12 April 2007 11:06, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>> I dunno how you want to approach this, but gmake does recommend 2
>> jobs be run in parallel for HTT enabled chips, and 3 or 4 jobs for a
>> dual core machines.
>> -Garrett
>
> So far the approach is one job per CPU.
On Thursday 12 April 2007 11:06, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> I dunno how you want to approach this, but gmake does recommend 2
> jobs be run in parallel for HTT enabled chips, and 3 or 4 jobs for a
> dual core machines.
> -Garrett
So far the approach is one job per CPU. I'll do some benchmarks lateron
Benjamin Lutz wrote:
> I've looked at your patches and programs, and I'm starting to have a
> fairly clear idea of solution should look like. I would like to see:
>
> * Integration into the existing ports framework. No new scripts or files
> should be required. The whitelist file needs to go.
On Thursday 12 April 2007 18:32, [LoN]Kamikaze wrote:
> Robert Noland wrote:
> > Have any of you looked at sysutils/bsdadminscripts, it's buildflags
> > options allow for parallel builds as well as ccache / distcc use.
> > I have a reasonable list of ports that must have some or all of
> > these o
Robert Noland wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-04-12 at 05:43 +0200, Benjamin Lutz wrote:
>> Hello Pav,
>>
>> On Tuesday 10 April 2007 19:44, Pav Lucistnik wrote:
>>> Benjamin Lutz píše v út 10. 04. 2007 v 04:52 +0200:
Some time ago, after buying a Core 2 Duo system, I've become
interested in doing
On Thu, 2007-04-12 at 05:43 +0200, Benjamin Lutz wrote:
> Hello Pav,
>
> On Tuesday 10 April 2007 19:44, Pav Lucistnik wrote:
> > Benjamin Lutz píše v út 10. 04. 2007 v 04:52 +0200:
> > > Some time ago, after buying a Core 2 Duo system, I've become
> > > interested in doing something about the inh
Pav Lucistnik wrote:
Benjamin Lutz píše v čt 12. 04. 2007 v 05:43 +0200:
Is there any detailed information available on what's planned here
that
isn't in your description on SoC page?
I don't know if I can forward you the proposal text, they might not be
public. But it's basically co
Benjamin Lutz píše v čt 12. 04. 2007 v 05:43 +0200:
> Is there any detailed information available on what's planned here
> that
> isn't in your description on SoC page?
I don't know if I can forward you the proposal text, they might not be
public. But it's basically copy&paste from the Ideas pag
Hello Pav,
On Tuesday 10 April 2007 19:44, Pav Lucistnik wrote:
> Benjamin Lutz píše v út 10. 04. 2007 v 04:52 +0200:
> > Some time ago, after buying a Core 2 Duo system, I've become
> > interested in doing something about the inherent
> > single-threadedness of the ports. Even though I have a dua
Benjamin Lutz píše v út 10. 04. 2007 v 04:52 +0200:
> Some time ago, after buying a Core 2 Duo system, I've become interested
> in doing something about the inherent single-threadedness of the ports.
> Even though I have a dualcore machine, ports builds only ever use one
> core. I started think
Doug Barton wrote:
> > o Leave the ports framework as it is, and implement support for
> > parallel building in add-on tool, eg., portupgrade. The tool would
> > support automatic parallelism ("portupgrade -a" would automatically
> > build ports in parallel where possible), or having several
Benjamin Lutz wrote:
Hello,
Since Multi-core processors are becoming popular (or, more
egocentrically, since I've acquired one), I've become interested in
parallel compilation. Unfortunately, it seems that parallel builds of
any kind are completely unsupported by the ports framework at the
m
On Thursday 19 October 2006 10:24, Benjamin Lutz wrote:
>..
> o Mark the ports that allow parallel building by adding a new flag
>that can be used in ports makefiles, eg. PARALLEL_BUILDING=yes.
>With such a port, the build target would call, say
>"gmake -j${PARALLEL_NUM}" instead of ju
Benjamin Lutz wrote:
> ...
>
> I'm sure I'm not the only person that has thought about this. Maybe
> there already is an effort to allow for parallelism in port builds.
German speaking people might be interested in the following articles:
a) http://wiki.bsdforen.de/index.php/Bsdadminscripts#buil
32 matches
Mail list logo
