Patchwork kernel.bbclass: Allow do_compile_kernelmodules to use PARALLEL_MAKE

Without this we don't take advantage of any configured multiple CPU
cores which seems a shame.

Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
---

On 11-12-09 7:34 PM, Richard Purdie wrote:
> Without this we don't take advantage of any configured multiple CPU
> cores which seems a shame.

Agreed.

Acked-by: Bruce Ashfield <bruce.ashfield@windriver.com>

>
> Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie<richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
> ---
> diff --git a/meta/classes/kernel.bbclass b/meta/classes/kernel.bbclass
> index d0cc279..120a524 100644
> --- a/meta/classes/kernel.bbclass
> +++ b/meta/classes/kernel.bbclass
> @@ -89,7 +89,7 @@ kernel_do_compile() {
>   do_compile_kernelmodules() {
>   	unset CFLAGS CPPFLAGS CXXFLAGS LDFLAGS MACHINE
>   	if (grep -q -i -e '^CONFIG_MODULES=y$' .config); then
> -		oe_runmake modules  CC="${KERNEL_CC}" LD="${KERNEL_LD}"
> +		oe_runmake ${PARALLEL_MAKE} modules  CC="${KERNEL_CC}" LD="${KERNEL_LD}"
>   	else
>   		bbnote "no modules to compile"
>   	fi
>
>

On 12/09/2011 04:34 PM, Richard Purdie wrote:
> Without this we don't take advantage of any configured multiple CPU
> cores which seems a shame.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>

Thanks RP,

Acked-by: Darren Hart <dvhart@linux.intel.com>

> ---
> diff --git a/meta/classes/kernel.bbclass b/meta/classes/kernel.bbclass
> index d0cc279..120a524 100644
> --- a/meta/classes/kernel.bbclass
> +++ b/meta/classes/kernel.bbclass
> @@ -89,7 +89,7 @@ kernel_do_compile() {
>  do_compile_kernelmodules() {
>  	unset CFLAGS CPPFLAGS CXXFLAGS LDFLAGS MACHINE
>  	if (grep -q -i -e '^CONFIG_MODULES=y$' .config); then
> -		oe_runmake modules  CC="${KERNEL_CC}" LD="${KERNEL_LD}"
> +		oe_runmake ${PARALLEL_MAKE} modules  CC="${KERNEL_CC}" LD="${KERNEL_LD}"
>  	else
>  		bbnote "no modules to compile"
>  	fi
> 
>

On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 4:34 PM, Richard Purdie
<richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Without this we don't take advantage of any configured multiple CPU
> cores which seems a shame.
>
> Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
> ---
> diff --git a/meta/classes/kernel.bbclass b/meta/classes/kernel.bbclass
> index d0cc279..120a524 100644
> --- a/meta/classes/kernel.bbclass
> +++ b/meta/classes/kernel.bbclass
> @@ -89,7 +89,7 @@ kernel_do_compile() {
>  do_compile_kernelmodules() {
>        unset CFLAGS CPPFLAGS CXXFLAGS LDFLAGS MACHINE
>        if (grep -q -i -e '^CONFIG_MODULES=y$' .config); then
> -               oe_runmake modules  CC="${KERNEL_CC}" LD="${KERNEL_LD}"
> +               oe_runmake ${PARALLEL_MAKE} modules  CC="${KERNEL_CC}" LD="${KERNEL_LD}"
>        else
>                bbnote "no modules to compile"
>        fi


in base.bbclass oe_runmake says

${MAKE} ${EXTRA_OEMAKE} "$@"

and

conf/bitbake.conf says

EXTRA_OEMAKE_prepend_task-compile = "${PARALLEL_MAKE} "

hmmm so we dont parallel make if task is not called do_compile ?

On Sat, 2011-12-10 at 15:28 -0800, Khem Raj wrote:
> in base.bbclass oe_runmake says
> 
> ${MAKE} ${EXTRA_OEMAKE} "$@"
> 
> and
> 
> conf/bitbake.conf says
> 
> EXTRA_OEMAKE_prepend_task-compile = "${PARALLEL_MAKE} "
> 
> hmmm so we dont parallel make if task is not called do_compile ?

Indeed.  It's been that way basically forever; I think this was to avoid
a class of problems caused by trying to run "make install" with -j.  

It's possible that the general situation has improved a bit since that
code was written and it might be interesting to try enabling it for
install as well and see what happens.

p.

On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Phil Blundell <philb@gnu.org> wrote:
> Indeed.  It's been that way basically forever; I think this was to avoid
> a class of problems caused by trying to run "make install" with -j.

correct I wanted to highlight it since its important to know when we
write recipes
and have special compile steps

On Mon, 2011-12-12 at 18:21 +0000, Phil Blundell wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-12-10 at 15:28 -0800, Khem Raj wrote:
> > in base.bbclass oe_runmake says
> > 
> > ${MAKE} ${EXTRA_OEMAKE} "$@"
> > 
> > and
> > 
> > conf/bitbake.conf says
> > 
> > EXTRA_OEMAKE_prepend_task-compile = "${PARALLEL_MAKE} "
> > 
> > hmmm so we dont parallel make if task is not called do_compile ?
> 
> Indeed.  It's been that way basically forever; I think this was to avoid
> a class of problems caused by trying to run "make install" with -j.  
> 
> It's possible that the general situation has improved a bit since that
> code was written and it might be interesting to try enabling it for
> install as well and see what happens.

I recently merged patches to default to add PARALLEL_MAKE to do_install.
We have had surprisingly few issues with that. I think autotools itself
got fixed and hence so did anything using it. I guess anything with
broken makefiles already disables PARALLEL_MAKE so it seemed to work
pretty well.

Cheers,

Richard