-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 30.9k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Speedup: build docs in parallel #92733
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Faster is better!
A
@hugovk Should we backport to 3.9 and 3.10 too? A |
Yes, labels added. |
I'll have to dig into this a bit later, but at first glance it can't be backported to 3.9. I don't remember all the details but in 3.9 we used a non-compatibile sphinx extention (in That's why on docs.python.org we only use parallel builds since 3.10: We'll also have to check how it goes with the already present |
Thanks, let's keep it simple and drop the 3.9 backport, this change is mainly beneficial for developers building docs, and I expect that will mostly be
Yep, what's a good way to check it? |
By running And it goes well, so it looks good to me. It starts we'll just have to remove the |
Thanks @hugovk for the PR, and @JulienPalard for merging it 🌮🎉.. I'm working now to backport this PR to: 3.10, 3.11. |
(cherry picked from commit a487623) Co-authored-by: Hugo van Kemenade <hugovk@users.noreply.github.com>
Sorry, @hugovk and @JulienPalard, I could not cleanly backport this to |
GH-92847 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.11 branch. |
(cherry picked from commit a487623) Co-authored-by: Hugo van Kemenade <hugovk@users.noreply.github.com>
(cherry picked from commit a487623)
GH-92850 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.10 branch. |
Flag drop from |
sphinx-build
has a-j N
option:https://www.sphinx-doc.org/en/master/man/sphinx-build.html#cmdoption-sphinx-build-j
Test on a new 10-core Mac
Results of two runs before
Results of two runs after
That's nearly twice as fast: 1m06s -> 35s
Test on an old dual-core Mac
Results of one run before
Results of one runs before
That's about 1.5x faster: 3m42s -> 2m29s