On Thu, 12 Jan 2023 17:22:42 +0100, Martin Liška wrote: > 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. You are welcome. > >> >> 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 Thanks! > > Btw. do you have an Github account I can CC? I have reacted with an emoji and subscribed to the issue. Thanks, Akira > > Cheers, > Martin > >> >> Thanks, Akira >> >> >
