Hi,
It seems that we have usually used 20% or less, but I am not sure if this is minimal requested value for all of them. May we could try to rebuild a few packages and see how it behaves if we increase it to 30% (or 20)? Regards, Dejan ________________________________________ From: Aurelien Jarno [[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 11:03 PM To: James Cowgill Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: RFC: Changing default ggc-min-expand on mips and mipsel? On 2016-10-18 15:04, James Cowgill wrote: > Hi, > > On 18/10/16 13:49, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > > On mips and mipsel, we have more and more packages failing to build from > > source with a "virtual memory exhausted" error in GCC, due to the 2GB > > address space limit. It seems the occurrence is even higher since the > > switch to GCC 6. The usual answer has been to play with the > > ggc-min-expand GCC parameter, and many packages do that already [1]. > > > > The ggc-min expand parameter defaults to "30% + 70% * (RAM/1GB) with an > > upper bound of 100% when RAM >= 1GB". In practice all of our build > > daemons, but also most of the development machines (including the CI20 > > board) are bound to 100%. I therefore wonder if we should change the > > default at least for mips and mipsel in Debian, and maybe even upstream > > for 32-bit architectures. > > > > Any opinion or comment about that? > > I think this is a good idea since it is almost "free" and we don't have > to change lots of packages. I also think changing it on other 32-bit > arches is a good idea, although they're not as affected as much since > that have an extra 1GB of virtual memory. Ok, I'll work on a patch for the debian package then. The next question is which value should we use? 30% like if the machine had no RAM? 20% like used by some packages? Aurelien -- Aurelien Jarno GPG: 4096R/1DDD8C9B [email protected] http://www.aurel32.net
