| |||||||||||||
Android 4.1 in AOSPAndroid 4.1 in AOSPPosted Jul 11, 2012 14:15 UTC (Wed) by karim (subscriber, #114)In reply to: Android 4.1 in AOSP by mikemol Parent article: Android 4.1 in AOSP
This is -j16
The only escape is CCACHE. It'll cut those numbers by 50%. But I've seen it do funky stuff and I've learned to distrust it.
(Log in to post comments)
Android 4.1 in AOSP Posted Jul 11, 2012 14:29 UTC (Wed) by mikemol (subscriber, #83507) [Link]
On an eight-core (no SMT) system, I have "-j16 --load=8". I've found it works much better than a straight -j16 or "-j --load=8"; I keep my processors busy, and they're compiling instead of context-switching.
Android 4.1 in AOSP Posted Jul 11, 2012 14:31 UTC (Wed) by karim (subscriber, #114) [Link]
Interesting. I'll have to try that. Thanks for the heads-up.
Android 4.1 in AOSP Posted Jul 11, 2012 14:39 UTC (Wed) by mikemol (subscriber, #83507) [Link]
Load-based management is also very nice if you use distcc and gigabit ethernet; anything running on a remote box doesn't impact your local load. :)
Android 4.1 in AOSP Posted Jul 11, 2012 16:56 UTC (Wed) by rgfernandes (guest, #78238) [Link]
I have made some benchmarks.
Here in my work we have a server with 24 GB RAM and 2 Xeons with 6 cores each.
time make -j 24 -l 12
real 26m9.001s
time make -j 24
real 17m58.537s
time make -j 12
real 21m1.784s
Android 4.1 in AOSP Posted Jul 11, 2012 16:57 UTC (Wed) by rgfernandes (guest, #78238) [Link]
I forgot to say: Android 4.0.3
Android 4.1 in AOSP Posted Jul 11, 2012 17:07 UTC (Wed) by mikemol (subscriber, #83507) [Link]
Interesting. I wonder why the difference in behaviors between your system and mine. Cache size? I/O? Do you have I'll try to get back with some benchmarks of my own later this week.
FWIW, my rough stats are:
Android 4.1 in AOSP Posted Jul 11, 2012 17:32 UTC (Wed) by rgfernandes (guest, #78238) [Link]
The server use a RAID 5 with SCSI disks.
Maybe it is the disks.
Android 4.1 in AOSP Posted Jul 11, 2012 17:35 UTC (Wed) by karim (subscriber, #114) [Link]
Highly likely. That's why JBQ had been suggesting lots of RAM. You might as well have the entire tree in the fs cache in RAM ...
Android 4.1 in AOSP Posted Jul 11, 2012 17:35 UTC (Wed) by mikemol (subscriber, #83507) [Link]
Could be. I've got RAID-grade SATA disks, but I don't remember if I'm building on top of them right now or not. Either way, disk cache may mute the effect.
What do you have for RAM?
Android 4.1 in AOSP Posted Jul 12, 2012 19:30 UTC (Thu) by kugel (subscriber, #70540) [Link]
Is this make? My make has no --load parameter.
Android 4.1 in AOSP Posted Jul 12, 2012 19:33 UTC (Thu) by mikemol (subscriber, #83507) [Link]
Looks like I'm running GNU make 3.82-r1 on Gentoo. Which version of make are you running?
Android 4.1 in AOSP Posted Jul 12, 2012 20:18 UTC (Thu) by jimparis (subscriber, #38647) [Link]
It looks like the "-l LOAD" option was added to GNU Make version 3.28, which was released in 1988. So if you don't have it, you're probably not using GNU Make. :)
Android 4.1 in AOSP Posted Jul 12, 2012 20:02 UTC (Thu) by ABCD (subscriber, #53650) [Link] The parameter is actually --load-average, but GNU make (like most GNU software) allows you to shorten long options so long as they remain unambiguous.
Android 4.1 in AOSP Posted Jul 12, 2012 20:03 UTC (Thu) by mikemol (subscriber, #83507) [Link]
Good to know. I'll be sure to use the full-length form in the future, for clarity.
|
|||||||||||||