Wouldn't "0" be a better default? Setting threads to "0" will make xz use the
CPU count anyway, so it'd be honest too.



Met vriendelijke groet / kind regards,

Mike Looijmans
System Expert


TOPIC Embedded Products B.V.
Materiaalweg 4, 5681 RJ Best
The Netherlands

T: +31 (0) 499 33 69 69
E: mike.looijmans@topicproducts.com
W: www.topic.nl

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
On 11-09-2021 12:04, Richard Purdie via lists.openembedded.org wrote:
> rpm output packages currently depend on the value of XZ_THREADS which
> is ok if left to the default value but problematic if system limits
> are set such as on the autobuilder.
>
> Force the value to a specific one in the hashes for better sstate reuse
> and consistent rpm task checksums.
>
> Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
> ---
>   meta/conf/bitbake.conf | 1 +
>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/meta/conf/bitbake.conf b/meta/conf/bitbake.conf
> index 2140d498f7c..e25d632dc1c 100644
> --- a/meta/conf/bitbake.conf
> +++ b/meta/conf/bitbake.conf
> @@ -811,6 +811,7 @@ PARALLEL_MAKE ?= "-j ${@oe.utils.cpu_count()}"
>   # Default parallelism and resource usage for xz
>   XZ_MEMLIMIT ?= "50%"
>   XZ_THREADS ?= "${@oe.utils.cpu_count(at_least=2)}"
> +XZ_THREADS[vardepvalue] = "1"
>   XZ_DEFAULTS ?= "--memlimit=${XZ_MEMLIMIT} --threads=${XZ_THREADS}"
>   XZ_DEFAULTS[vardepsexclude] += "XZ_MEMLIMIT XZ_THREADS"
>   
>
>
>
>
>


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#156483): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/156483
Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/85529700/5052612
Group Owner: openembedded-core+owner@lists.openembedded.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [quaresma.jose@gmail.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-