From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=)
Subject: Re: [PATCH] build: Speed up .go compilation.
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 22:16:32 +0100
Message-ID: <87lh7ves0f.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <87lha3rx04.fsf@T420.taylan> <87mvsgxpef.fsf@T420.taylan>
	<87ziwgf1b4.fsf@gnu.org> <87egdqy24m.fsf@T420.taylan>
	<87bn8u76tl.fsf@gnu.org> <8760z1ybos.fsf@T420.taylan>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:44167)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1aIjpN-0007jv-Ti
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 16:16:38 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1aIjpK-0007u9-Jz
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 16:16:37 -0500
In-Reply-To: <8760z1ybos.fsf@T420.taylan> ("Taylan Ulrich
	\=\?utf-8\?Q\?\=5C\=22Bay\=C4\=B1rl\=C4\=B1\=2FKammer\=5C\=22\=22's\?\=
	message of "Sun, 10 Jan 2016 11:24:19 +0100")
List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution."
	<guix-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
To: Taylan Ulrich =?utf-8?Q?=22Bay=C4=B1rl=C4=B1?=
	=?utf-8?Q?=2FKammer=22?= <taylanbayirli@gmail.com>
Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org

taylanbayirli@gmail.com (Taylan Ulrich "Bay=C4=B1rl=C4=B1/Kammer") skribis:

> Well, my observation while testing guix pull was that before, one would
> get several Guile processes each taking up about 100=C2=A0MB memory if I
> remember correctly.  (As many processes as one has cores.)  So for dual-
> or quad-core devices we're not making things (much) worse, but maybe
> some single-core devices with little memory will now have problems.

Right, but now the amount of memory consumed is proportional to the
number of modules compiled, whereas it was constant before.

> If it becomes urgent, we could partition the files to be compiled into
> subsets and use a few Guile processes to compile them.  Could actually
> speed things up on multi-core devices, and would still be much faster
> than one-process-per-file on single-core.

Yes.

Ludo=E2=80=99.