From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20110117183601.567225B04@mail.bitblocks.com>
References: <20110117165024.CC7C75B04@mail.bitblocks.com>
	<e29f941aee38be21741e8ca2335e2801@coraid.com>
	<20110117183601.567225B04@mail.bitblocks.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 21:33:31 +0200
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=K8Kr-wG6NNho8PB2mpp4jCjz-kq==jaYnsujB@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ciprian Dorin Craciun <ciprian.craciun@gmail.com>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [9fans] `mk` (from Plan9 ports) efficiency related issue
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 9da8e144-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 20:36, Bakul Shah <bakul+plan9@bitblocks.com> wrote=
:
> On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 11:56:22 EST erik quanstrom <quanstro@labs.coraid.com=
> =C2=A0wrote:
>> > strace tells you what system calls were made and when. =C2=A0To
>> > find out which functions use most time, compile with -pg and
>> > look at the gprof output once done. =C2=A0That 14 seconds were
>> > probably spent computing dependencies. =C2=A0You can convert your
>> > test.mk to a Makefile with a trivial sed script. See what
>> > bsdmake or gmake does with it time wise. {bsd,g}make have
>> > been been abused with huge Makefiles for far longer and are
>> > likely to be friendlier to them :-)
>
>> i don't see how comparing with *make would get one closer
>> to solving the mystery.
>
> The comparison would reveal if other makes do better. I
> suspect they do and that would solve Ciprian's problem.

    Ok. So I've transformed (with a `sed` script as suggested) the
script from `mk` to GNU `make. The results is as follows:
    * building the entire thing with no parallelism took as in my
experiment -- when I've just obtained the raw commands and runned them
with plain sh -- about 1 minute and 27 seconds seconds;
    * after the build issuing `make` a second time take under one
second (0.2 seconds);

    I'll try now to profile the `mk` tool as suggested.

    Ciprian.

    P.S.: I'm not suggesting that GNU `make` is a better tool, just
that for this particular task it behaves better. (Actually I find it
overly complex and almost incomprehensible in its full
implications...)