On 5/12/23 09:46, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> On Friday, 12 May 2023 00:08:03 BST Mark Knecht wrote:
>> On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 3:07?PM Peter Humphrey <peter@prh.myzen.co.uk>
>>
>> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 11 May 2023 17:18:17 BST Mark Knecht wrote:
>> <SNIP>
>>
>>>> The ''problem' is this can easily hit 100% of the cores you have in the
>>>> machine if not sensibly set. (You choose what's 'sensible')
>>> Once again, --load-average is being ignored. Why is it there? Surely, it
>>> must be to mitigate the worst effects of that N*K, but it isn't doing so.
>> From your description, yeah, it's weird, but possibly it's managing it over
>> (for instance) over much longer time frames or something like that.
>>
>> Or possibly it just doesn't work.
> That's it, I'm sure.
>
>> Or possibly whoever wrote the man page misunderstood.
> Load-average has been around for a long time.
>
>> Poking around a bit this morning I took the path at the bottom of the
>> link I gave you to the Portage niceness page. It says scheduling policy
>> control started with portage-3.0.35 which on paper sounds sort of recent.
>> Possibly a bug crept in, but I was curious as to what you have for
>> PORTAGE_SCHEDULING_POLICY, if any, and whether you need to enable some
>> sort of scheduling to get this under control?
>>
>> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Portage_niceness
> I have no PORTAGE_SCHEDULING_POLICY, or not that I can find. It seems to me
> that such a policy is to do with the running of portage in the OS, rather than
> how it launches its own emerge jobs. Is that right?
>
>> Anyway, I feel for ya.
> :)
>
You can read /usr/share/portage/config/make.conf.example for an
explanation. All children processes will use that. I can run portage and
play games on the same system with my settings.
> On Friday, 12 May 2023 00:08:03 BST Mark Knecht wrote:
>> On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 3:07?PM Peter Humphrey <peter@prh.myzen.co.uk>
>>
>> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 11 May 2023 17:18:17 BST Mark Knecht wrote:
>> <SNIP>
>>
>>>> The ''problem' is this can easily hit 100% of the cores you have in the
>>>> machine if not sensibly set. (You choose what's 'sensible')
>>> Once again, --load-average is being ignored. Why is it there? Surely, it
>>> must be to mitigate the worst effects of that N*K, but it isn't doing so.
>> From your description, yeah, it's weird, but possibly it's managing it over
>> (for instance) over much longer time frames or something like that.
>>
>> Or possibly it just doesn't work.
> That's it, I'm sure.
>
>> Or possibly whoever wrote the man page misunderstood.
> Load-average has been around for a long time.
>
>> Poking around a bit this morning I took the path at the bottom of the
>> link I gave you to the Portage niceness page. It says scheduling policy
>> control started with portage-3.0.35 which on paper sounds sort of recent.
>> Possibly a bug crept in, but I was curious as to what you have for
>> PORTAGE_SCHEDULING_POLICY, if any, and whether you need to enable some
>> sort of scheduling to get this under control?
>>
>> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Portage_niceness
> I have no PORTAGE_SCHEDULING_POLICY, or not that I can find. It seems to me
> that such a policy is to do with the running of portage in the OS, rather than
> how it launches its own emerge jobs. Is that right?
>
>> Anyway, I feel for ya.
> :)
>
You can read /usr/share/portage/config/make.conf.example for an
explanation. All children processes will use that. I can run portage and
play games on the same system with my settings.