Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2025 10:14:59 +0200 (CEST) From: Ronald Klop <ronald-lists@klop.ws> To: Harald Eilertsen <haraldei@anduin.net> Cc: java@freebsd.org Subject: (solved, I think) Re: openjdk build failures on "nm" Message-ID: <387357483.2815.1757924099539@localhost> In-Reply-To: <mxss65u22c5oy4gvokvpc472yospz5mtyv7aionej5qgq7ycx2@jpxajffsomeh> References: <1221594030.658.1756976173189@localhost> <wy6tjmjqq3temf3smm7vbohvxd5hvvaplrycx66zmfffkwg4sn@2lfjlx3fp7xr> <1330428831.1750.1756980558066@localhost> <efoy4e5mqaa5xen277swrpj3w2mgthmkxza5p3k3hbxfpc7hn5@joytibqygluz> <2053927433.1876.1757575928041@localhost> <mxss65u22c5oy4gvokvpc472yospz5mtyv7aionej5qgq7ycx2@jpxajffsomeh>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
[-- Attachment #1 --] Van: Harald Eilertsen <haraldei@anduin.net> Datum: donderdag, 11 september 2025 10:15 Aan: Ronald Klop <ronald-lists@klop.ws> CC: java@freebsd.org Onderwerp: Re: openjdk build failures on "nm" > > On Thu, Sep 11, 2025 at 09:32:08AM +0200, Ronald Klop wrote: > > As it seems hard to debug, what do the java@ maintainers think of this experiment? > > > > diff --git a/java/openjdk17/Makefile b/java/openjdk17/Makefile > > index 5cb25e6aee72..ba7001ff2bd0 100644 > > --- a/java/openjdk17/Makefile > > +++ b/java/openjdk17/Makefile > > @@ -38,7 +38,7 @@ GH_PROJECT= jdk17u > > > > NO_CCACHE= yes > > > > -_MAKE_JOBS= # > > +MAKE_JOBS_UNSAFE= yes > > MAKE_ENV= LANG="C" \ > > LC_ALL="C" \ > > CLASSPATH="" \ > > That's well spotted! I think this is definitely worth trying. I'm no > expert on the ports Makefiles myself, but was told to use > MAKE_JOBS_UNSAFE instead in the review for openjdk24. Haven't gone > through all the ancient version yet, as my focus is mainly on mainline, > and these days on openjdk25. > > > I can commit this today to openjdk17 and if builds start to succeed to other openjdk* ports. > > I'm in favour! > > H! > > > Hi Harald, I found out what happens in openjdk23 and openjdk24 around _MAKE_JOBS. _MAKE_JOBS is an internal variable in Mk/bsd.port.mk used to add "-j<MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER>" to the make command in do-build. It was set empty to suppress passing -j, because the port otherwise gives this error: ===> Building for openjdk17-17.0.16+8.1_2 Error: 'make -jN' is not supported, use 'make JOBS=N' NB: this error comes from work/jdk17u-jdk-17.0.16-8-1/make/InitSupport.gmk:119 In /usr/ports/Mk/bsd.port.mk we have these lines of code: . if defined(DISABLE_MAKE_JOBS) || defined(MAKE_JOBS_UNSAFE) _MAKE_JOBS?= # MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER= 1 . else So setting _MAKE_JOBS is a side effect of MAKE_JOBS_UNSAFE. The suggestion of using MAKE_JOBS_UNSAFE was just another way of setting _MAKE_JOBS and MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER. But the MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER is never passed to the (implicit) do-build target of the ports Makefile. If you look in https://pkg-status.freebsd.org/beefy17/data/15stable-amd64-default/56c5cbbc8d99/logs/openjdk23-23.0.2+7.1_2.log and search for "jobs" you will find this: checking for number of cores... 48 checking for memory size... 130685 MB checking for appropriate number of jobs to run in parallel... 48 ... Build performance summary: * Build jobs: 48 So, in summary * MAKE_JOBS_UNSAFE sets _MAKE_JOBS empty and gives the suggestion of running without parallel jobs. But the port further ignores MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER and ... * The port decides to run with 48 parallel jobs as it looks at the number of CPUs. * A bit more documentation/comments around overriding the _MAKE_JOBS variable in the Makefile could have saved us quite some research. 😉 The current construction in openjdk17 handles MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER properly. And with that also the MAKE_JOBS_UNSAFE variable. After more testing we can use this blueprint in other openjdk ports. Also in openjdk23 and -24. They don't have flapping builds but can improve handling of MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER. Regards, Ronald. [-- Attachment #2 --] <html><head></head><body><br> <p><strong>Van:</strong> Harald Eilertsen <haraldei@anduin.net><br> <strong>Datum:</strong> donderdag, 11 september 2025 10:15<br> <strong>Aan:</strong> Ronald Klop <ronald-lists@klop.ws><br> <strong>CC:</strong> java@freebsd.org<br> <strong>Onderwerp:</strong> Re: openjdk build failures on "nm"</p> <blockquote style="padding-right: 0px; padding-left: 5px; margin-left: 5px; border-left: #000000 2px solid; margin-right: 0px"> <div class="MessageRFC822Viewer" id="P"> <div class="TextPlainViewer" id="P.P">On Thu, Sep 11, 2025 at 09:32:08AM +0200, Ronald Klop wrote:<br> > As it seems hard to debug, what do the java@ maintainers think of this experiment?<br> ><br> > diff --git a/java/openjdk17/Makefile b/java/openjdk17/Makefile<br> > index 5cb25e6aee72..ba7001ff2bd0 100644<br> > --- a/java/openjdk17/Makefile<br> > +++ b/java/openjdk17/Makefile<br> > @@ -38,7 +38,7 @@ GH_PROJECT= jdk17u<br> ><br> > NO_CCACHE= yes<br> ><br> > -_MAKE_JOBS= #<br> > +MAKE_JOBS_UNSAFE= yes<br> > MAKE_ENV= LANG="C" \<br> > LC_ALL="C" \<br> > CLASSPATH="" \<br> <br> That's well spotted! I think this is definitely worth trying. I'm no<br> expert on the ports Makefiles myself, but was told to use<br> MAKE_JOBS_UNSAFE instead in the review for openjdk24. Haven't gone<br> through all the ancient version yet, as my focus is mainly on mainline,<br> and these days on openjdk25.<br> <br> > I can commit this today to openjdk17 and if builds start to succeed to other openjdk* ports.<br> <br> I'm in favour!<br> <br> H!</div> <hr></div> </blockquote> <br> Hi Harald,<br> <br> I found out what happens in openjdk23 and openjdk24 around _MAKE_JOBS.<br> <br> _MAKE_JOBS is an internal variable in Mk/bsd.port.mk used to add "-j<MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER>" to the make command in do-build. It was set empty to suppress passing -j, because the port otherwise gives this error: <pre class="description">===> Building for openjdk17-17.0.16+8.1_2 Error: 'make -jN' is not supported, use 'make JOBS=N' NB: this error comes from work/jdk17u-jdk-17.0.16-8-1/make/InitSupport.gmk:119 </pre> <br> In /usr/ports/Mk/bsd.port.mk we have these lines of code: <pre>. if defined(DISABLE_MAKE_JOBS) || defined(MAKE_JOBS_UNSAFE) _MAKE_JOBS?= # MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER= 1 . else</pre> <br> So setting _MAKE_JOBS is a side effect of MAKE_JOBS_UNSAFE. The suggestion of using MAKE_JOBS_UNSAFE was just another way of setting _MAKE_JOBS and MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER.<br> But the MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER is never passed to the (implicit) do-build target of the ports Makefile.<br> <br> If you look in <a href="https://pkg-status.freebsd.org/beefy17/data/15stable-amd64-default/56c5cbbc8d99/logs/openjdk23-23.0.2+7.1_2.log">https://pkg-status.freebsd.org/beefy17/data/15stable-amd64-default/56c5cbbc8d99/logs/openjdk23-23.0.2+7.1_2.log</a> and search for "jobs" you will find this: <pre>checking for number of cores... 48 checking for memory size... 130685 MB checking for appropriate number of jobs to run in parallel... 48 ... </pre> <pre>Build performance summary: * Build jobs: 48 </pre> So, in summary<br> * MAKE_JOBS_UNSAFE sets _MAKE_JOBS empty and gives the suggestion of running without parallel jobs. But the port further ignores MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER and ...<br> * The port decides to run with 48 parallel jobs as it looks at the number of CPUs.<br> * A bit more documentation/comments around overriding the _MAKE_JOBS variable in the Makefile could have saved us quite some research. 😉<br> <br> The current construction in openjdk17 handles MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER properly. And with that also the MAKE_JOBS_UNSAFE variable. After more testing we can use this blueprint in other openjdk ports.<br> Also in openjdk23 and -24. They don't have flapping builds but can improve handling of MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER.<br> <br> Regards,<br> Ronald.<br> </body></html>help
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?387357483.2815.1757924099539>