From: Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com>
To: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@oracle.com>,
Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>
Cc: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@kernel.org>,
Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: docs: requirements.txt has stopped working again
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2024 00:43:51 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <e0da8231-e75d-40ec-85ab-71b2a9caa111@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <878r4eiwhm.fsf@meer.lwn.net>
On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 08:25:57 -0700, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 14:21:32 +0100, Vegard Nossum wrote:
>>> On 23/01/2024 13:30, Jani Nikula wrote:
>>>> On the other hand, if you're using a virtual environment, what's the
>>>> point in holding back to a version as old as 2.4.4? You might just as
>>>> well go for latest, specifying only the top level dependencies,
>>>
>>> Performance... Specifying exact package requirements like 2.4.4 is
>>> useful since 2.4.4 is by far the fastest Sphinx version that builds our
>>> documentation correctly (AFAICT) and build speed matters a lot when the
>>> difference is 10 minutes vs 30 minutes.
>>>
>>
>> I've never observed such a huge difference, probably because I almost
>> always do clean build of the document, i.e., run "make cleandocs" before
>> running "make htmldocs".
>>
>> So I assumed the performance regression Vegard are emphasizing should
>> be in incremental builds.
>>
>> Here are some of the results comparing v2.4.5, v4.3.2 (of ubuntu jammy),
>> and v7.2.6. (v2.4.5 needs "make -j2 htmldocs" to avoid OOM.)
>> Incremental builds are done after moving from v6.7 to v6.8-rc1.
>>
>> VM spec used: memory: 8GB, threads: 4, ubuntu jammy
>>
>> data in each cell: elapsed time, max resident memory
>>
>> v2.4.5 v4.3.2 v7.2.6
>> ============================= ============ ============ ============
>> clean build at v6.7 10m08s 3.3GB 10m31s 1.1GB 10m14s 1.2GB
>> incremental build at v6.8-rc1 11m22s 3.3GB 18m55s 1.2GB 19m50s 1.4GB
>> clean build at v6.8-rc1 10m45s 3.2GB 10m32s 1.2GB 10m13s 1.3GB
>>
>> empty make at v6.8-rc1 3.3s 6.6s 7.0s
>> ============================= ============ ============ ============
>
> So that is quite different from my experience. For me, full builds got
> way slower starting with 3.x and haven't improved much since, though
> I've not played much with 7.x yet.
One of the reasons I can think of why 2.4.5 is not faster is
the "make -j2" I need to use. 2.4.x is way more eager to use
more parallel slots than >=3.1 in later stages of its processing.
I think you have a memory rich system that allows a lot of parallel
slots. On a machine with 16GB memory, I can say -j4 (or -j5 if
I am lucky).
>
> It's weird that incremental builds take longer than full for you.
>
Incremental builds of small differences is faster than full for me
as well.
I used v6.7 --> v6.8-rc1 (full merge window) to emphasize the slowness.
But yes, it's strange to see incremental build becomes slower
than full build even if the diff is a lot.
Thanks, Akira
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-01-24 15:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-01-23 4:14 docs: requirements.txt has stopped working again Akira Yokosawa
2024-01-23 7:43 ` Vegard Nossum
2024-01-23 12:30 ` Jani Nikula
2024-01-23 13:21 ` Vegard Nossum
2024-01-23 16:19 ` Jonathan Corbet
2024-01-24 15:02 ` Akira Yokosawa
2024-01-24 15:25 ` Jonathan Corbet
2024-01-24 15:43 ` Akira Yokosawa [this message]
2024-01-26 14:42 ` Akira Yokosawa
2024-01-24 19:56 ` Vegard Nossum
2024-01-23 16:53 ` Jani Nikula
2024-01-23 18:11 ` Jani Nikula
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=e0da8231-e75d-40ec-85ab-71b2a9caa111@gmail.com \
--to=akiyks@gmail.com \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=jani.nikula@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mchehab@kernel.org \
--cc=vegard.nossum@oracle.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).