Bruce Dubbs wrote: > Jonathan Cottrill wrote: > > As mentioned in Chapter 6, the Perl tests take quite a bit of time when run > > with "make -k test". The testing framework used by Perl doesn't respect the -j > > option to make, so the tests never run in parallel. > > > > There's another way to run the Perl test suite, using the test_harness make > > target and the TEST_JOBS variable; for example: > > > > TEST_JOBS=8 make test_harness > > > > (I picked 8 in this case based on trial and error and load averages on my > > quad-core system.) On my system, the test time went from 10m6s to 2m24s. > > > > The docs (https://perldoc.perl.org/perlhack.html#Parallel-tests) do point out > > a caveat that could make this less than ideal for LFS builders: There are some > > tests that supposedly become flaky when run in parallel, like dist/IO/t/ > > io_dir.t. However, I've run the suite several times this way, and have yet to > > see any new failures (the expected Compress-Raw-Zlib and IO-Compress failures > > still occur, of course). dist/IO/t/io_dir.t is always reported as "ok". > > > > A slight oddity of running this way is that the output is a bit different. > > Skipped tests have additional information about why they're skipped, and the > > final report on test failures is more detailed. > > At about 2.5 SBU, I do not think the test time for perl is excessive. I > think we can just leave this as is. > > I have added notes to libtool and autoconf on how to speed up tests. > > -- Bruce
Makes sense to me. Thanks! I'm specifically working on improving build/test times for packages, now; if I find other things, is there a threshold in SBU where it's worth mentioning on this list? Don't want to spam people, but also happy to pass on my findings when they might be helpful. -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
