From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Mon May 28 21:32:54 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hackers@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97C2216A479; Mon, 28 May 2007 21:32:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from Hartmut.Brandt@dlr.de) Received: from smtp-1.dlr.de (smtp-1.dlr.de [195.37.61.185]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 328BE13C448; Mon, 28 May 2007 21:32:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from Hartmut.Brandt@dlr.de) Received: from [192.168.2.102] ([172.21.151.1]) by smtp-1.dlr.de with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 28 May 2007 23:32:52 +0200 Message-ID: <465B4A84.6050407@dlr.de> Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 23:32:52 +0200 From: Hartmut Brandt User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (Windows/20070221) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mike Meyer References: <4659EF80.70100@math.missouri.edu> <465AB421.10802@dlr.de> <18011.6019.436391.128372@bhuda.mired.org> In-Reply-To: <18011.6019.436391.128372@bhuda.mired.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 May 2007 21:32:52.0647 (UTC) FILETIME=[BF4FD370:01C7A16F] Cc: ports@freebsd.org, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Looking for speed increases in "make index" and pkg_version for ports X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 21:32:54 -0000 Mike Meyer wrote: > In <465AB421.10802@dlr.de>, Hartmut Brandt typed: >> 1. make and its sub-makes for a) reading the file; b) parsing the file >> (note that .if and .for processing is done while parsing); c) processing >> targets. > > Make and submakes have been gone over already. See http://miller.emu.id.au/pmiller/books/rmch/ >. > > I'm not sure it can be applied to the ports tree, though. I haven't > looked into it, but recalled this paper when you mentioned measuring > makes and sub-makes. Unfortunately you deleted the sentence before, so I rephrase it: before looking into optimizations find out where the time is actually spend - how many seconds of the hours the process takes, are actually spent in make and sub-makes. If the entire process takes 2 hours of which the makes take 20 seconds then by enhancing performance of make by 50% you win 10 seconds. This is probably not worth a single line of additional code. The paper you point to talks about something entirely different. harti