fix(pacmak): re-introduce parallelism for Python and Go builds #3124
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
In #3045, the `OneByOneBuilder` was switched to build all packages in series (instead of all in parallel), because there would be race conditions in case of inter-package dependencies. This is correct, but leaves a bunch of possible parallelism on the table that is notably blowing up pack times for Python. Re-introduce a (limited) form of parallelism by retaining the sets of mutually independent packages, as toposorted, and doing those in parallel.
rix0rrr
changed the title
otaviomacedo
approved these changes
Nov 8, 2021
|
Thank you for contributing! ❤️ I will now look into making sure the PR is up-to-date, then proceed to try and merge it! |
|
Merging (with squash)... |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
In #3045, the
OneByOneBuilderwas switched to build all packagesin series (instead of all in parallel), because there would
be race conditions in case of inter-package dependencies.
This is correct, but leaves a bunch of possible parallelism on the
table that is notably blowing up pack times for Python.
Re-introduce a (limited) form of parallelism by retaining the
sets of mutually independent packages, as toposorted, and
doing those in parallel.
Rename the class to
IndependentPackageBuilderto more clearlydescribe the intent behind the class.
By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.