Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2022 20:55:43 -0800 From: Mark Millard <marklmi@yahoo.com> To: Bryan Drewery <bdrewery@FreeBSD.org>, "bapt@freebsd.org" <bapt@FreeBSD.org> Cc: FreeBSD Toolchain <freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: poudriere and MAX_EXECUTION_TIME_PACKAGE vs. NOHANG_TIME Message-ID: <BBBFA62F-3B70-4894-A524-AB9FC766D4AC@yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <A30E788D-826A-4DE7-B370-85F33F009E54@yahoo.com> References: <701E3CA0-8436-4459-AEB2-E8EFEE77DCAB@yahoo.com> <A30E788D-826A-4DE7-B370-85F33F009E54@yahoo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2022-Jan-24, at 23:14, Mark Millard <marklmi@yahoo.com> wrote: > [Just a resend with a corrected email address.] > > On 2022-Jan-24, at 22:05, Mark Millard <marklmi@yahoo.com> wrote: > > I've been experimenting with WITH_DEBUG= port builds via > poudriere-devel --including some testing of bulk -a . > > For something like devel/llvm13 the .pkg file generated is > huge (multi-GiBytes) and takes more time to produce than > the rest of the llvm13 build did. This is with that being > the only active builder (no otherwise significant activity > on the ThreadRipper 1950X in use for the experiments). > > If other builders or other activity leads to load averages > noticeably above the hardware thread count (32 in the > context), that adds to how long teh .pkg file generation > takes. > > What I noticed was that setting MAX_EXECUTION_TIME_PACKAGE > effectively did no good for the load average case if > the NOHANG_TIME was shorter: it stops for the NOHANG_TIME > during the .pkg generation instead. > > In part this is the lack of having any output (progress > messaging?) while the .pkg file is being generated, although > may be one could argue that the package phase possibly > should not have NOHANG_TIME applied at all. > > I'm only noting the relationship and need to understand > it when setting the figures --and the need for large > figures if WITH_DEBUG= is to be in use for various ports. > > I've not checked if there is any other phases/activities > that might have similar issues possible. I just actually > ran into having devel/llvm* builders stop for NOHANG_TIME . My context for this ended up being somewhat messier: 2 ports really did hang up and, having set the NOHANG_TIME to the very large values for devel/llvm*'s (and the like), the hung up builders would take a very long time to fail, despite hanging up early. After the increase of NOHANG_TIME, I was not using very many builders for other reasons (disk space vs. devel/llvm* disk use during builds). Blocking the builders was not a good thing. I hope that, at some point, having a smaller NOHANG_TIME and a larger MAX_EXECUTION_TIME_PACKAGE will allow package to run based on the MAX_EXECUTION_TIME_PACKAGE value, not the NOHANG_TIME value. I'm not picky between: A) pkg outputting to the log once and a while vs. B) NOHANG_TIME just not applying to the pkg run. FYI: I worked around the hung builders by killing processes that were supposed to be doing the build activity. This avoided stopping long-running builds that were making progress and lead to freeing the builders for other work --instead of waiting for NOHANG_TIME. === Mark Millard marklmi at yahoo.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?BBBFA62F-3B70-4894-A524-AB9FC766D4AC>