Re: lockf in installworld -- not a good idea

For what its worth.... I'd go with just stopping support for -j in
installworld, even if things are CPU bound.

installworld should *NEVER* be done -j. Ever. That wasn't part of
the installworld bargin when it was started. There's no point to it
at all. As such, any support to make it work should be removed with
extreme prejustice. Why on earth would you want to do installworld
-j?

Warner
_______________________________________________
freebsd-current@xxxxxxxxxxx mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx"

Relevant Pages

  • Re: lockf in installworld -- not a good idea
    ... Making it required for installworld is asking for trouble. ... The basic problem here is that install-info doesn't support parallelism. ... network I/O bound, not CPU... ... even if things are CPU bound. ...
    (freebsd-current)
  • Re: lockf in installworld -- not a good idea
    ... :>> installworld, even if things are CPU bound. ... parallel installworld. ...
    (freebsd-current)
  • Re: lockf in installworld -- not a good idea
    ... installworld, even if things are CPU bound. ... installworld bargin when it was started. ... I wouldn't doubt that it's at least marginally faster, possibly a bit faster, but I think I come down pretty firmly on the side of "let's make installworld as simple and reliable as possible" -- breaking in the middle of installworld can have messy consequences, and we should minimize the chances of that as much as possible. ...
    (freebsd-current)
  • Re: lockf in installworld -- not a good idea
    ... On 9/29/06, Warner Losh wrote: ... > installworld, even if things are CPU bound. ... That's kinda my thought. ...
    (freebsd-current)