From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Nov 12 21:01:56 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DDD616A4CE; Fri, 12 Nov 2004 21:01:56 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ns1.xcllnt.net (209-128-86-226.bayarea.net [209.128.86.226]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B010A43D2D; Fri, 12 Nov 2004 21:01:55 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from marcel@xcllnt.net) Received: from ns1.xcllnt.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ns1.xcllnt.net (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id iACL1sKZ063683; Fri, 12 Nov 2004 13:01:55 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from marcel@ns1.xcllnt.net) Received: (from marcel@localhost) by ns1.xcllnt.net (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id iACL1sqn063682; Fri, 12 Nov 2004 13:01:54 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from marcel) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 13:01:54 -0800 From: Marcel Moolenaar To: Poul-Henning Kamp Message-ID: <20041112210154.GA63387@ns1.xcllnt.net> References: <20041112195030.GA63153@ns1.xcllnt.net> <12448.1100289673@critter.freebsd.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <12448.1100289673@critter.freebsd.dk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i cc: Harti Brandt cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [TEST] make -j patch [take 2] X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 21:01:56 -0000 On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 09:01:13PM +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <20041112195030.GA63153@ns1.xcllnt.net>, Marcel Moolenaar writes: > >On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 08:57:21PM +0200, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > >> > >> I now feel like everything that should have been said > >> was said, and this thread should die. ;) > > > >Not quite. It hasn't been said that phk@ is obstinate, disrespectful > >and arrogant. For someone who's advocating mechanisms over policies > >he's also been trying very hard to shove his policies down your > >throat. This also makes him promiscuous (in a non-sexual manner). > > Uhm, it's actually me who is trying to prevent Ruslan for enforcing > his policies on the "make universe" target... He likes a feature so he can control his make universe in a certain way. He isn't forcing his policy upon anybody, just a way for him to do it his way for himself. Now, if his way was totally bogus then I see grounds for unilaterally denying his request. This I don't see. A mechanism to allow a submake to become the first in a new set is an elementary feature that allows us to implement the old behaviour, good or bad, and if nothing else is just a simple way to cover our asses. Since the implementation would not complicate matters to the extend that maintenance becomes impossible, I see no justification for the way the thread evolved. The default behaviour, what you've implemented, is the perfect behaviour to minimize wall-clock time and maximize resource utilization, constrained by the -j setting, but it's not the only way you can allocate resources and spawn jobs. This is where it becomes a policy issue and denying sub-optimal scheduling is therefore a policy decision as well. -- Marcel Moolenaar USPA: A-39004 marcel@xcllnt.net