Hi Christophe,

On Thu, Aug 11, 2022 at 09:54:35AM +0200, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> I'd like to start 2 more workers, for GCC: one for armhf, one for arm64.
> They will be running ubuntu-22.04, 20 CPUs each.
> 
> So:
> ncpus:20
> maxcpus:20
> max_builds:1
> 
> I'd like them to run "gcc_full", which should take ~2h according to my
> experiments.

Cool. I did add a "gcc-full" build for x86_64 last week to use one of
the workers that has 12 or 16 cores. It takes ~50 to ~140 minutes
depending on which worker it picks and the other load on the machine.

When a build takes this long you cannot really test each commit
separately. 12 patches and you have a whole day of building. So you
either only build periodically, or you collapse the pending build
requests. The existing gcc-full builders collapse the builds. So I'll
suggest these new builders do too, but let me know if you rather have
them try a build only periodically (say every 8 hours?)

> Looking at https://builder.sourceware.org/buildbot/#/workers, I suspect
> there may be at least a naming problem since the other workers have
> "generic names" (I mean we already have similar workers, dedicated to gdb).
> 
> BTW, I'm wondering whether it was a mistake to have our other workers
> named armXX-ubuntu-YY, since the other ones are named distro-arch?

Naming isn't 100% consistent, and it doesn't really matter much for
worker names. It does matter a little for the builder names, sadly
those also aren't fully consistent. But as long as we are somewhat
consitent in the tag names hopefully people can still sort interesting
builds together.

Renaming the workers would mean changing them on both sides, so lets
stick with the original names for now. Then we can name these the
other way around:

ubuntu22_04-arm64
ubuntu22_04-armhf

See the attached patch.

Cheers,

Mark