This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Large parallel glibc builds.
- From: "Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho" <tuliom at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>
- To: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Carlos Eduardo Seo <cseo at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2015 23:08:29 -0200
- Subject: Re: Large parallel glibc builds.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <5679A3BE dot 2060303 at redhat dot com> <5679AE4E dot 3020907 at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com> <5679AEFC dot 9000102 at redhat dot com>
"Carlos O'Donell" <email@example.com> writes:
> On 12/22/2015 03:10 PM, Carlos Eduardo Seo wrote:
>> On 12/22/15 5:25 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>>> I am consistently doing parallel (-j56) builds for glibc on Intel
>>> Xeon CPU E5-2697 v3 @ 2.60GHz (2 socket x 14 cores x 2HT).
>>> I have not seen any failures or artifacts that look like hazards or
>>> races in our makefiles.
>>> Is anyone else using larger boxes for builds and still seeing
>>> Cheers, Carlos.
>> No, I've been doing -j80 builds on POWER8 just fine. I could run a
>> test on larger systems, if you wish.
> If you have a chance it would be good to collect a little more data.
> We will also get some larger boxes to double check.
We also have a POWER7 build slave running with with -j128 since Jan/2013
>From time to time, a testcase fails. In some cases, due to a timeout.
For the record, in this particular server, we're still using PARALLELMFLAGS.
But we don't use it on other servers.
What kind of data are you looking for?