On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 3:07 PM Peter Humphrey <pe...@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. Or possibly whoever wrote the man page misunderstood. 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 find this page a bit troubling as it isn't clear to a dummy like me what happens if nothing is set. If I still ran Gentoo, or if it was easier to set up a VM, I'd try it myself but alas it ain't to be. Anyway, I feel for ya. Good luck, Mark
