Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 08:18:14 +0200 From: Hartmut Brandt <hartmut.brandt@dlr.de> Cc: ports@freebsd.org, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Looking for speed increases in "make index" and pkg_version for ports Message-ID: <465BC5A6.7090806@dlr.de> In-Reply-To: <18011.23448.513335.199513@bhuda.mired.org> References: <4659EF80.70100@math.missouri.edu> <465AB421.10802@dlr.de> <18011.6019.436391.128372@bhuda.mired.org> <465B4A84.6050407@dlr.de> <18011.23448.513335.199513@bhuda.mired.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Mike Meyer wrote: > In <465B4A84.6050407@dlr.de>, Hartmut Brandt <hartmut.brandt@dlr.de> typed: >> Mike Meyer wrote: >>> In <465AB421.10802@dlr.de>, Hartmut Brandt <hartmut.brandt@dlr.de> 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 <URL: >>> 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. > > It think we're talking about two different things. You're talking > about the efficiency of make, whereas he's talking about the > efficiency of make. Um, wait. > > You're talking about what I'll call the *internal* efficiency of make, > defined as how fast it does the things it does. He's talking about > what I'll call the *external* efficiency of make, which is how well it > does at doing the minimum amount of work it needs to do. I hope you > can see where the confusion comes from. Yeah, from that you deleted the other two of my points in your response where I talked about shells and external commands executed by make. You cited the point where I asked for numbers on *internal* efficiency and the point to a paper about *external* efficiency. I've seen no numbers WHAT actually makes the ports stuff so slow. To make my point a last time: until there are numbers, there is no guess around what to do. harti
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?465BC5A6.7090806>