Subject: Re: i386 MP performance ( and generic almost same)
To: None <>
From: Greg Troxel <>
List: current-users
Date: 11/12/2007 08:30:02
David Laight <> writes:

> On Sun, Nov 11, 2007 at 04:45:56PM -0500, Greg Troxel wrote:
>> Bernd Ernesti <> writes:
>> That's all true, but I've been running with MAKE_JOBS = 2, 3 or 4 for a
>> long time.  This just passes e.g. -j3 to the make invocation to build
>> the package.  I have run into packages that fail, and have marked those
>> MAKE_JOBS_SAFE=no, and others have done that too.  ...
>> Actually fixing the packages that aren't "-jN safe" is a lot of work, of
>> course, and those fixes really should be done upstream.
> Trouble is, one sucessful build doesn't actually mean the package will
> always safely build with -j4.

Absolutely - but usually they fail at least 1/3 and I've rebuilt my set
of packages enough times that I think almost all the unsafe ones in that
set are now tagged as MAKE_JOBS_SAFE=no.