Add an option to run rustbuild on low priority on Windows and Unix by QuietMisdreavus · Pull Request #42069 · rust-lang/rust

QuietMisdreavus · 2017-05-17T21:28:21Z

This is a resurrection of #40776, combining their Windows setup with an additional setup on Unix to set the program group's niceness to +10 (low-but-not-lowest priority, mirroring the priority in the Windows setup) when the low_priority option is on.

This is a resurrection of rust-lang#40776, combining their Windows setup with an additional setup on Unix to set the program group's niceness to +10 (low-but-not-lowest priority) when the `low_priority` option is on.

rust-highfive · 2017-05-17T21:28:31Z

r? @alexcrichton

(rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

porglezomp · 2017-05-17T21:32:40Z

nice

aidanhs · 2017-05-18T00:15:08Z

Thanks for the PR @QuietMisdreavus, we'll make sure @alexcrichton or another reviewer gets to this soon.

alexcrichton

Looks great to me, thanks @QuietMisdreavus!

alexcrichton · 2017-05-18T15:47:45Z

src/bootstrap/lib.rs

+    //apparently glibc defines their own enum for this parameter, in a different type
+    #[cfg(not(any(target_env = "musl", target_env = "musleabi", target_env = "musleabihf",
+                  target_os = "emscripten", target_arch = "mips", target_arch = "mipsel")))]
+    const PRIO_PGRP: libc::c_uint = libc::PRIO_PGRP as libc::c_uint;


It looks like this is defined as

pub const PRIO_PGRP: ::c_int = 1;

for all platforms, is the #[cfg] here necessary?

The re-declaration is necessary because of how setpriority is defined for glibc platforms:

pub fn setpriority(which: ::__priority_which_t, who: ::id_t, prio: ::c_int) -> ::c_int;

Where __priority_which_t is at the top of the file:

pub type __priority_which_t = ::c_uint;

Without this re-declaration, I get a type error when calling setpriority on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.

Ah yep that'd do it!

alexcrichton · 2017-05-18T15:48:03Z

src/bootstrap/config.toml.example

 #openssl-static = false

+# Run the build with low priority
+#low_priority = false


In TOML configuration we tend to prefer dashes, could this perhaps be low-priority?

alexcrichton · 2017-05-18T15:48:34Z

src/bootstrap/config.toml.example

 # known-good version of OpenSSL, compile it, and link it to Cargo.
 #openssl-static = false

+# Run the build with low priority


Could you expand this to explain a bit about what this means? Referencing nice here for Unix and "low priority" job object for Windows would probably be sufficient.

alexcrichton · 2017-05-18T16:06:16Z

@bors: r+

bors · 2017-05-18T16:06:18Z

📌 Commit 4f88106 has been approved by alexcrichton

…hton Add an option to run rustbuild on low priority on Windows and Unix This is a resurrection of rust-lang#40776, combining their Windows setup with an additional setup on Unix to set the program group's *nice*ness to +10 (low-but-not-lowest priority, mirroring the priority in the Windows setup) when the `low_priority` option is on.

Mark-Simulacrum · 2017-05-18T23:53:30Z

@bors r-

This failed in the rollup:

[00:01:36] Command failed. Attempt 2/5:
[00:01:37]    Compiling bootstrap v0.0.0 (file:///Users/travis/build/rust-lang/rust/src/bootstrap)
[00:01:37] error[E0308]: mismatched types
[00:01:37]    --> src/bootstrap/lib.rs:128:31
[00:01:37]     |
[00:01:37] 128 |             libc::setpriority(PRIO_PGRP, 0, 10);
[00:01:37]     |                               ^^^^^^^^^ expected i32, found u32
[00:01:37] 
[00:01:39] error: aborting due to previous error
[00:01:39] 
[00:01:39] error: Could not compile `bootstrap`.
[00:01:39] 
[00:01:39] To learn more, run the command again with --verbose.
[00:01:39] Build completed unsuccessfully in 0:00:02
[00:01:39] make: *** [prepare] Error 101

QuietMisdreavus · 2017-05-19T01:22:29Z

Failed on macOS. I totally missed the condition that sends libc into the notbsd module in the first place:

if #[cfg(any(target_os = "linux",
             target_os = "android",
             target_os = "emscripten",
             target_os = "fuchsia"))] {
    mod notbsd;
    pub use self::notbsd::*;
}

Gonna make this cfg even more awkward, sadly.

(EDIT: For those curious, libc has a cfg_if! macro that lets it set up chains like this.)

QuietMisdreavus · 2017-05-19T01:46:20Z

Looking back at this, it feels like it would be cleaner to patch libc to make PRIO_PGRP be of type __priority_which_t on platforms where the signature of setpriority requires that. Otherwise, this would just require updating this cfg dance any time libc adds more Unix platforms. This is especially important because the cfg set I looked at to make this PR (that on master) is different than the cfg set that was actually pulled in by my rustc build. I would effectively break bootstrap for those platforms that get left out of the cfg condition but don't have tests in CI.

Mark-Simulacrum · 2017-05-19T02:27:21Z

Patching libc in this way would be backwards incompatible, though, right? I don't know libc all that well unfortunately (both the C library and the crate) so I can't really comment here. cc @rust-lang/libs, probably.

sfackler · 2017-05-19T02:58:04Z

Should be solvable with just PRIO_GRP as _.

QuietMisdreavus · 2017-05-19T03:24:26Z

...huh. I've never seen some_value as _ before. Works like a charm on my own Linux system!

Mark-Simulacrum · 2017-05-19T03:30:07Z

@bors r=alexchrichton

bors · 2017-05-19T03:30:08Z

📌 Commit dd0855d has been approved by alexchrichton

bors · 2017-05-19T10:46:00Z

⌛ Testing commit dd0855d with merge 3c94c57...

bors · 2017-05-19T11:17:22Z

💔 Test failed - status-appveyor

alexcrichton · 2017-05-19T14:41:19Z

@bors: retry

appveyor network issues Tracking issue for spurious network failures on bots #40474

bors · 2017-05-20T04:44:37Z

⌛ Testing commit dd0855d with merge b011276...

bors · 2017-05-20T05:20:06Z

💔 Test failed - status-appveyor

Mark-Simulacrum · 2017-05-20T12:29:20Z

Another failure (hopefully spurious) to build rustc.

@bors retry

bors · 2017-05-20T14:39:54Z

⌛ Testing commit dd0855d with merge e848729...

bors · 2017-05-20T15:42:41Z

💔 Test failed - status-appveyor

Mark-Simulacrum · 2017-05-20T16:00:04Z

Hmm, that's the second time it's failed with rustc just not compiling. I think I've seen this on another PR though so presumably not related? Very concerning though. I'll give it another chance.

@bors retry

[00:57:55]    Compiling rustc v0.0.0 (file:///C:/projects/rust/src/librustc)
[01:01:56] error: Could not compile `rustc`.
[01:01:56]
[01:01:56] To learn more, run the command again with --verbose.
[01:01:56]
[01:01:56]
[01:01:56] command did not execute successfully: "C:\\projects\\rust\\build\\x86_64-pc-windows-msvc\\stage0/bin\\cargo.exe" "build" "-j" "2" "--target" "x86_64-pc-windows-msvc" "--release" "--locked" "--features" "" "--manifest-path" "C:\\projects\\rust\\src/rustc/Cargo.toml"
[01:01:56] expected success, got: exit code: 101
[01:01:56]
[01:01:56]
[01:01:56] Build completed unsuccessfully in 0:40:28

bors · 2017-05-20T20:55:59Z

⌛ Testing commit dd0855d with merge 01951a6...

Add an option to run rustbuild on low priority on Windows and Unix This is a resurrection of #40776, combining their Windows setup with an additional setup on Unix to set the program group's *nice*ness to +10 (low-but-not-lowest priority, mirroring the priority in the Windows setup) when the `low_priority` option is on.

bors · 2017-05-20T23:27:03Z

☀️ Test successful - status-appveyor, status-travis
Approved by: alexchrichton
Pushing 01951a6 to master...

Add an option to run rustbuild on low priority

1a7375b

This is a resurrection of rust-lang#40776, combining their Windows setup with an additional setup on Unix to set the program group's niceness to +10 (low-but-not-lowest priority) when the `low_priority` option is on.

rust-highfive assigned alexcrichton May 17, 2017

aidanhs added the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. label May 18, 2017

alexcrichton reviewed May 18, 2017

View reviewed changes

update config name and description for low-priority

4f88106

Mark-Simulacrum mentioned this pull request May 18, 2017

Rollup of 10 pull requests #42090

Closed

fix casting of PRIO_PGRP

dd0855d

Mark-Simulacrum added S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels May 20, 2017

bors merged commit dd0855d into rust-lang:master May 20, 2017

QuietMisdreavus deleted the low_pri branch August 16, 2017 00:15

kennytm mentioned this pull request Feb 22, 2018

change opt-level 2 to 3 in bootstrap rustflags #48204

Closed

Uh oh!

Conversation

QuietMisdreavus commented May 17, 2017 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

rust-highfive commented May 17, 2017

Uh oh!

porglezomp commented May 17, 2017

Uh oh!

aidanhs commented May 18, 2017

Uh oh!

alexcrichton left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

alexcrichton May 18, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

QuietMisdreavus May 18, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

alexcrichton May 18, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

alexcrichton May 18, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

alexcrichton May 18, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

alexcrichton commented May 18, 2017

Uh oh!

bors commented May 18, 2017

Uh oh!

Mark-Simulacrum commented May 18, 2017

Uh oh!

QuietMisdreavus commented May 19, 2017 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

QuietMisdreavus commented May 19, 2017

Uh oh!

Mark-Simulacrum commented May 19, 2017

Uh oh!

sfackler commented May 19, 2017

Uh oh!

QuietMisdreavus commented May 19, 2017

Uh oh!

Mark-Simulacrum commented May 19, 2017

Uh oh!

bors commented May 19, 2017

Uh oh!

bors commented May 19, 2017

Uh oh!

bors commented May 19, 2017

Uh oh!

alexcrichton commented May 19, 2017

Uh oh!

bors commented May 20, 2017

Uh oh!

bors commented May 20, 2017

Uh oh!

Mark-Simulacrum commented May 20, 2017

Uh oh!

bors commented May 20, 2017

Uh oh!

bors commented May 20, 2017

Uh oh!

Mark-Simulacrum commented May 20, 2017

Uh oh!

bors commented May 20, 2017

Uh oh!

bors commented May 20, 2017

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

9 participants

QuietMisdreavus commented May 17, 2017 •

edited

Loading

QuietMisdreavus commented May 19, 2017 •

edited

Loading