On Thu, 2011-06-09 at 14:15 +0100, Richard Purdie wrote: > On Thu, 2011-06-09 at 12:43 +0100, Phil Blundell wrote: > > On Thu, 2011-06-09 at 12:29 +0100, Richard Purdie wrote: > > > As you can see, eglibc do_package takes about 14 minutes which is about > > > 14% of our build time. That is a long time to block pretty much all > > > packaging activity, particularly if you have access to something with > > > several cores. When it does complete, even on my 4 core system you see a > > > "stampeding herd" of packaging happening on the build charts suggesting > > > a backlog does build up. > > > > Yeah, I can imagine that a backlog of packaging activity does build up. > > The thing I'm not entirely clear on is whether this is actually causing > > some threads to get starved of work (and hence the total build time to > > be longer than it needs to be) or whether we're really just shifting > > things around in the timeline without making much/any difference to the > > overall build duration. > > It will certainly be a net win on large core systems which I know of > people running builds on as task starvation happens there. Last time I > tested this on a 4 core I think we saw a couple of minutes improvement > in build time so it appears beneficial there too.
Just as another data point, I'm running builds on my 4 core machine here and it is scheduling many do_package tasks including long running ones such as perl's in parallel with eglibc-locale's do_package task. It would appear the bitbake scheduler believes there is benefit in splitting these out at least. Cheers, Richard _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
