From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: an idea about parallel doing do_patch To: bitbake-devel@lists.openembedded.org From: zhangyifan46@huawei.com X-Originating-Location: CN (103.218.218.125) X-Originating-Platform: Windows Chrome 85 User-Agent: GROUPS.IO Web Poster MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2020 01:27:29 -0700 Message-ID: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="pWMmOMCq6g04FFmR9oq0" --pWMmOMCq6g04FFmR9oq0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In our peoject,we have suffered a lot from long duration of do_patch of lin= ux kernel(3000+ patches). I found that one do_patch task uses only one proc= ess. So I modify a llittle do do_patch task. Here is my idea: 1.analyse the patches,only getting the modified files of each patch. 2.cluster all patches according to the files modified( patch no.1 modifies= file A,B ,patch no.2 modifies file A, patch no.3 modifies file C,then we c= luster patch no.1 and no.2 as=C2=A0 a group, patch no.3 as another group) ,= here I use union-find to do the cluster 3.assign one group on one process But I met the problem of probabilistic missing patches. Anyone has any comments about my idea? --pWMmOMCq6g04FFmR9oq0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In our peoject,we have suffered a lot from long duration of do_patch of lin= ux kernel(3000+ patches). I found that one do_patch task uses only one proc= ess. So I modify a llittle do do_patch task. Here is my idea:
1.analys= e the patches,only getting the modified files of each patch.
2.cluster= all patches according to the files modified( patch no.1 modifies file A,B = ,patch no.2 modifies file A, patch no.3 modifies file C= ,then we cluster patch no.1 and no.2 as  a group, patch no.3 as anothe= r group) , here I use union-find to do the cluster
3.assign one group = on one process
But I met the problem of probabilistic missing patches.=
Anyone has any comments about my idea? --pWMmOMCq6g04FFmR9oq0--