|
View:
New views
3 Messages
—
Rating Filter:
Alert me
|
|
|
is anyone using threaded automake?Since the 1.11 release I have not seen one bug report about
$AUTOMAKE_JOBS aka. automake running several Perl threads to update several Makefile.in files concurrently, for speed. If you have more than a couple of Makefile.am files and a SMP system, then it should help. Is anyone using it? Has anyone seen issues with it? Bugs could manifest in unstable Makefile.in content, i.e., running it a second time creates a different file, and/or unstable warning/error output from automake, thus by definition be hard to detect and hard to debug. Which is why I'm asking whether I should assume "it just works" or "nobody uses it" or "there is not enough use to expose bugs". Thanks, Ralf |
|
|
Re: is anyone using threaded automake?On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 6:45 AM, Ralf Wildenhues <Ralf.Wildenhues@...> wrote:
> Since the 1.11 release I have not seen one bug report about > $AUTOMAKE_JOBS aka. automake running several Perl threads to > update several Makefile.in files concurrently, for speed. > If you have more than a couple of Makefile.am files and a SMP > system, then it should help. > > Is anyone using it? Has anyone seen issues with it? I didn't even know it existed, but I just tried it out and it seems to generate correct output for a project I have with 12 Makefile.am files. I have a quad core machine and set AUTOMAKE_JOBS=4. The performance gains are fairly small, however: $ AUTOMAKE_JOBS=1 time automake 1.31user 0.19system 0:01.51elapsed 100%CPU $ AUTOMAKE_JOBS=4 time automake 1.62user 0.24system 0:01.14elapsed 163%CPU And they are imperceptible with autoreconf. > Bugs could manifest in unstable Makefile.in content, > i.e., running it a second time creates a different file, > and/or unstable warning/error output from automake, thus by > definition be hard to detect and hard to debug. Which is > why I'm asking whether I should assume "it just works" or > "nobody uses it" or "there is not enough use to expose bugs". I made two copies of the project, ran AUTOMAKE_JOBS=1 autoreconf -i in one and AUTOMAKE_JOBS=20 autoreconf -i in another and diff -r said the results were the same. FWIW, Jason |
|
|
Re: is anyone using threaded automake?Hi Jason,
* Jason Sewall wrote on Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 06:28:31PM CET: > On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 6:45 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > > > Is anyone using it? Has anyone seen issues with it? > > I didn't even know it existed, but I just tried it out and it seems to > generate correct output for a project I have with 12 Makefile.am > files. I have a quad core machine and set AUTOMAKE_JOBS=4. > > The performance gains are fairly small, however: > $ AUTOMAKE_JOBS=1 time automake > 1.31user 0.19system 0:01.51elapsed 100%CPU > > $ AUTOMAKE_JOBS=4 time automake > 1.62user 0.24system 0:01.14elapsed 163%CPU Yeah, the perl thread spawning really has high overhead, and the output synchronization isn't all that performant either. I did get quite acceptable speedup out of a 150-makefile project. > And they are imperceptible with autoreconf. Oh well. Thanks for testing, Ralf |
| Free embeddable forum powered by Nabble | Forum Help |