[cfarm-users] Setting up GitLab CI for git.git on the farm

[Baptiste Jonglez]

On 25-11-18, Segher Boessenkool via cfarm-users wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 01:14:31PM +0100, Stefan Ring via cfarm-users wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 10:25 AM Baptiste Jonglez via cfarm-users
> > <cfarm-users at lists.tetaneutral.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > According to ansible [https://cfarm.tetaneutral.net/machines/list/] gcc112
> > > has 160 cores, and gcc135 has 128 cores.  Is ansible getting this wrong?
> > 
> > 8 threads per core. It really does not make sense to target more than
> > one job for each core. Things will just get horribly slow.
> 
> No, that's not true, up to 4 jobs per core still gives considerable
> speedup (and 8 a little too, depends).  Performance _per thread_ is lower
> of course, but aggregate is higher.  SMT4 gets about twice as much work
> done as single-threaded (which means each thread gets about half as much
> done, but the total doubles).  Very roughly, depends on what you are doing
> exactly, etc.
> 
> lscpu gets it right on all these machines btw (110, 112, 135); what does
> ansible use?

Ansible parses /proc/cpuinfo:

  https://github.com/ansible/ansible/blob/devel/lib/ansible/module_utils/facts/hardware/linux.py#L181

Do you know how lscpu gets its information?

If somebody comes up with an ansible patch that gets the number of
CPU/cores/threads right on most farm machines, we can easily backport it
to the live cfarm system (we are already doing this with a patch from
Anatoly to properly support SPARC64, for gcc202).
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.tetaneutral.net/pipermail/cfarm-users/attachments/20181126/c9eceac1/attachment.sig>