On 1/12/23 00:13, Akira Yokosawa wrote: > On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 00:17:11 +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote: >> On Mon, 9 Jan 2023 15:14:46 +0100, Martin Liška wrote: >>> Hi. >>> >>> I can confirm the regression, I bisected Sphinx revision that caused that >>> and filled an upstream issues: >>> https://github.com/sphinx-doc/sphinx/issues/11116 >> >> Thank you Martin for looking into this! > > Thanks to Martin's inputs on the github issue, Sphinx 6.1.3 has released > and the issue is resolved for parallel builds. You're welcome. > > However, for non-parallel builds, the memory hog still remains. > Again, this is a table comparing 5.3.0, 6.1.2, and 6.1.3. > > ====== =================================== =============================== > elapsed time maxresident > ----------------------------------- ------------------------------- > Sphinx -j1 -j2 -j4 -j6 -j1 -j2 -j4 -j6 > ====== ======== ======== ======== ======== ======= ======= ======= ======= > 6.1.3 15:03.83 11:31.99 9:35.15 8:49.01 2949056 1059516 978232 967400 > 6.1.2 15:11.74 18:06.89 16:39.93 OOM 2961524 5548344 5255372 -- > 5.3.0 14:13.04 10:16.81 8:22.37 8:09.74 711532 937660 846016 800340 > ====== =================================== =============================== I thank you for the nice numbers you provided. > > Note: > - The -j1 run needs an explicit option given to sphinx-build: > make SPHINXOPTS="-q -j1" htmldocs > > I naively assumed that the memory hog would be resolved all together, > but that's not the case. Yep, I would expect that same. > > Martin, could you report the remaining issue to upstream Sphinx? Sure: https://github.com/sphinx-doc/sphinx/issues/11124 Btw. do you have an Github account I can CC? Cheers, Martin > > Thanks, Akira > >
