Le lundi 14 décembre 2009 à 16:05 +, Graham Percival a écrit :
> That could be what's happening... not necessarily parallel
> lilypond-book runs in the same directory, but building the english
> docs + translations at the same time with lilypond-book in
> parallel?
AFAIK and have experienced,
Graham Percival writes:
> That could be what's happening... not necessarily parallel
> lilypond-book runs in the same directory, but building the english
> docs + translations at the same time with lilypond-book in
> parallel?
>
> Is there any way to turn "make -jX doc" into
> "make -j1 CPU_COUNT
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 04:54:41PM +0100, John Mandereau wrote:
> Le lundi 14 décembre 2009 à 14:08 +0100, David Kastrup a écrit :
> > Maybe lilypond-book could create its temporary files in a local
> > directory with a unique name (involving host and process id, for
> > example). It sounds like t
Le lundi 14 décembre 2009 à 14:08 +0100, David Kastrup a écrit :
> Maybe lilypond-book could create its temporary files in a local
> directory with a unique name (involving host and process id, for
> example). It sounds like this could do the trick for parallel
> lilypond-book runs.
No. We share
Graham Percival writes:
> On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Graham Percival
> wrote:
>> On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 02:27:53PM -0200, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
>>> On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 2:02 PM, Graham Percival
>>> wrote:
>>> >> For now, the easy fix is to use -j1 with CPU_COUNT for building the doc
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Graham Percival
wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 02:27:53PM -0200, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
>> On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 2:02 PM, Graham Percival
>> wrote:
>> >> For now, the easy fix is to use -j1 with CPU_COUNT for building the docs.
>
> Ack! Sorry, I misread your
Le dimanche 13 décembre 2009 à 16:13 -0200, Han-Wen Nienhuys a écrit :
> The lock could just be per file, using file system locks (which are
> simple to use and efficient). Probably ly:parse-file should just lock
> and unlock the file while processing it.
This may be the best solution if we fail
Hi Han-Wen,
Le dimanche 13 décembre 2009 à 13:55 -0200, Han-Wen Nienhuys a écrit :
> Oh wait - there is one thing I did not think about: snippets may be
> shared by different documents, so if you use make -jX it is
> conceivable that make invokes two separate lilypond processes that
> have non-empt
Le dimanche 13 décembre 2009 à 16:48 +0100, David Kastrup a écrit :
> So if the hashed filenames pass through make (no idea if they do)
They don't, they pass between lilypond-book and lilypond.
Best,
John
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
___
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 2:46 PM, Graham Percival
wrote:
>> >> A more elaborate solution would be either some kind of locking, or to
>> >> check whether the .ps / .pdf exists before actually processing the
>> >> .ly; the latter is still suscepitible to races, though, but a check
>> >> could make t
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 02:27:53PM -0200, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 2:02 PM, Graham Percival
> wrote:
> >> For now, the easy fix is to use -j1 with CPU_COUNT for building the docs.
> >
> > Yes; that became the recommended way in Oct. But it's much slower
> > than it would
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 2:02 PM, Graham Percival
wrote:
>> Oh wait - there is one thing I did not think about: snippets may be
>> shared by different documents,
>
> Yes, that was my point about snippets being included in snippets.tely
> and (for example) rhythms.itely.
>
>> For now, the easy fix i
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 3:55 PM, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
> Oh wait - there is one thing I did not think about: snippets may be
> shared by different documents,
Yes, that was my point about snippets being included in snippets.tely
and (for example) rhythms.itely.
> For now, the easy fix is to use
Oh wait - there is one thing I did not think about: snippets may be
shared by different documents, so if you use make -jX it is
conceivable that make invokes two separate lilypond processes that
have non-empty intersection of their arguments.
For now, the easy fix is to use -j1 with CPU_COUNT for
Han-Wen Nienhuys writes:
> On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 12:44 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
>
Be warned that sometimes lilypond-book has hash collisions in the
filename, which can lead to weird compile errors when one process
finished dealing with aa/lily-.ps (and thus deletes it), whil
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 12:44 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
>>> Be warned that sometimes lilypond-book has hash collisions in the
>>> filename, which can lead to weird compile errors when one process
>>> finished dealing with aa/lily-.ps (and thus deletes it), while
>>> another process has finishe
Han-Wen Nienhuys writes:
> On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 12:13 PM, Graham Percival
> wrote:
>> On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 2:00 PM, Neil Puttock wrote:
>>> 2009/12/13 Mark Polesky :
>>>
Is there a way to improve this? I don't want to put too
much extra stress on CPU1 if I run `make check' alot
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 2:26 PM, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 12:13 PM, Graham Percival
> wrote:
>> On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 2:00 PM, Neil Puttock wrote:
>>> 2009/12/13 Mark Polesky :
>>>
Is there a way to improve this? I don't want to put too
much extra stress on
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 12:13 PM, Graham Percival
wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 2:00 PM, Neil Puttock wrote:
>> 2009/12/13 Mark Polesky :
>>
>>> Is there a way to improve this? I don't want to put too
>>> much extra stress on CPU1 if I run `make check' alot. Or am
>>> I being paranoid?
>>
>>
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 2:18 PM, Neil Puttock wrote:
> 2009/12/13 Graham Percival :
>
>> Be warned that sometimes lilypond-book has hash collisions in the
>> filename, which can lead to weird compile errors when one process
>> finished dealing with aa/lily-.ps (and thus deletes it), while
>> a
2009/12/13 Graham Percival :
> Be warned that sometimes lilypond-book has hash collisions in the
> filename, which can lead to weird compile errors when one process
> finished dealing with aa/lily-.ps (and thus deletes it), while
> another process has finished generating aa/lily-.ps but ha
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 2:00 PM, Neil Puttock wrote:
> 2009/12/13 Mark Polesky :
>
>> Is there a way to improve this? I don't want to put too
>> much extra stress on CPU1 if I run `make check' alot. Or am
>> I being paranoid?
>
> make -j5 CPU_COUNT=5 check
Be warned that sometimes lilypond-book
2009/12/13 Mark Polesky :
> Is there a way to improve this? I don't want to put too
> much extra stress on CPU1 if I run `make check' alot. Or am
> I being paranoid?
make -j5 CPU_COUNT=5 check
Cheers,
Neil
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-d
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 10:45:58PM -0800, Mark Polesky wrote:
> I don't know if there's an easy solution to this, but when I
> run `make check', CPU1 runs at or near 100% for about 6
> minutes while the other 3 cores sit idly by (for the most
> part).
> Is there a way to improve this? I don't wan
24 matches
Mail list logo
