Bug#694282: openssh: uses too much system ressources to build
Source: openssh
Version: 6.0p1-3
Severity: important
Hi!
While building src:openssh, I noticed unusually high CPU load and
1517 pts/1 S+ 0:00 /usr/bin/make -C build-deb -j 2 ASKPASS_PROGRAM=/usr/bin/ssh-askpass
and later, in the build logs as they scrolled past:
[…]
make[2]: Leaving directory `/tmp/buildd/openssh-6.0p1/build-deb'
/usr/bin/make -C build-udeb -j 2 ASKPASS_PROGRAM='/usr/bin/ssh-askpass' ssh scp sftp sshd ssh-keygen
make[2]: Entering directory `/tmp/buildd/openssh-6.0p1/build-udeb'
[…]
And this despite me *not* having the “parallel” keyword set
in DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS.
I consider this a Policy violation, but as it only affects
buildds, have refrained from considering it release critical,
though this is only as we’re in deep freeze.
My rationale behind this reading of Policy is thus:
(a) I might be on a ressource-constrained machine, or one
where running multiple threads is unstable (I think
some of the mips64 machines fall into that category,
and kfreebsd-* long used to). Building with two threads
may use more than twice the CPU and RAM than linear
building. (In my experience, the positive effects of
disc I/O related things and .text sharing are rather
neglegible, especially during package builds which
tend to cluster related tasks.)
(b) Even on an 8-core 64GiB-RAM monster, if I do not specify
parallel or parallel=\d in DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS, a package
has absolutely no business using more than one thread of
execution at a given time because I might want to use the
machine otherwise and/or run multiple builds in parallel,
scheduling CPU and RAM usage myself.
Please refrain from adding the -j option to gmake from your
next upload onwards unless parallel is given (Policy §4.9.1).
Thanks!
-- System Information:
Debian Release: wheezy/sid
APT prefers unreleased
APT policy: (500, 'unreleased'), (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: m68k
Kernel: Linux 3.2.0-4-atari
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=en_GB.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/mksh-static
Reply to: