Re: re-ordering "make subsequentcheck" for performance

2012-07-11 Thread Stephan Bergmann
On 07/11/2012 03:39 PM, Noel Grandin wrote: I'm sitting here with a 6-core monster of a machine, and watching it idle away (top says 90% idle, iotop says basically nothing is happening) as it gently processes the [SCK] stages of "make subsequentcheck". I've tried cranking up --with-max-jobs to 1

Re: re-ordering "make subsequentcheck" for performance

2012-07-11 Thread Michael Stahl
On 11/07/12 17:50, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote: > Hi Noel, > > On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 03:39:54PM +0200, Noel Grandin wrote: >> Where in the build scripts should I look to change this ordering? > > I agree with your observations and thing your approach might help. > > The longrunning tests are the l

Re: re-ordering "make subsequentcheck" for performance

2012-07-11 Thread Bjoern Michaelsen
Hi Noel, On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 03:39:54PM +0200, Noel Grandin wrote: > Where in the build scripts should I look to change this ordering? I agree with your observations and thing your approach might help. The longrunning tests are the likely unoapi tests. The OOoRunner is build here: http://o

re-ordering "make subsequentcheck" for performance

2012-07-11 Thread Noel Grandin
Hi I'm sitting here with a 6-core monster of a machine, and watching it idle away (top says 90% idle, iotop says basically nothing is happening) as it gently processes the [SCK] stages of "make subsequentcheck". I've tried cranking up --with-max-jobs to 18 and --with-num-cpus to 12, but that