From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from esa2.hc324-48.eu.iphmx.com (esa2.hc324-48.eu.iphmx.com [207.54.68.120]) by mx.groups.io with SMTP id smtpd.web11.37269.1599467836102330370 for ; Mon, 07 Sep 2020 01:37:17 -0700 Authentication-Results: mx.groups.io; dkim=pass header.i=@bmw.de header.s=mailing1 header.b=Um2EzSWT; spf=pass (domain: bmw.de, ip: 207.54.68.120, mailfrom: prvs=512b25981=mikko.rapeli@bmw.de) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bmw.de; i=@bmw.de; q=dns/txt; s=mailing1; t=1599467836; x=1631003836; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=7pgDCxwOJtHp8u2mLqElc7LwzlBonstUhwsS/vwIdFY=; b=Um2EzSWTs5/p6MZwh2xW6xr3lKX/AeSuHSczuxmELEATau8ygAPiLiBZ +TFdBmispHHOkWa0Es9gAJXcogjpx3jc3gtPAPrcPgVkcdu2naiqjB0bw UWseA+ta9eGYYwp9HbfoymNRgOgYNRXZ9iOm4W23mnoabXuQwVsOGfxIX 8=; Received: from esagw6.bmwgroup.com (HELO esagw6.muc) ([160.46.252.49]) by esa2.hc324-48.eu.iphmx.com with ESMTP/TLS; 07 Sep 2020 10:37:12 +0200 Received: from esabb1.muc ([160.50.100.31]) by esagw6.muc with ESMTP/TLS; 07 Sep 2020 10:37:12 +0200 Received: from smucm10k.bmwgroup.net (HELO smucm10k.europe.bmw.corp) ([160.48.96.47]) by esabb1.muc with ESMTP/TLS; 07 Sep 2020 10:37:12 +0200 Received: from smucm10k.europe.bmw.corp (160.48.96.47) by smucm10k.europe.bmw.corp (160.48.96.47) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS; Mon, 7 Sep 2020 10:37:12 +0200 Received: from smucm10k.europe.bmw.corp ([160.48.96.47]) by smucm10k.europe.bmw.corp ([160.48.96.47]) with mapi id 15.00.1497.006; Mon, 7 Sep 2020 10:37:12 +0200 From: "Mikko Rapeli" To: CC: Subject: Re: [bitbake-devel] an idea about parallel doing do_patch Thread-Topic: [bitbake-devel] an idea about parallel doing do_patch Thread-Index: AQHWhPDDDlg+C63ht0yrqWgAHJOICKlcuL+A Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2020 08:37:12 +0000 Message-ID: <20200907083711.GL2026@korppu> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-ID: <1CE85203A01F1F4EB9F1B7A09D2F4CEC@bmwmail.corp> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 01:27:29AM -0700, zhangyifan46 via lists.openembed= ded.org wrote: > In our peoject,we have suffered a lot from long duration of do_patch of = linux kernel(3000+ patches). I found that one do_patch task uses only one p= rocess. 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 modifi= es 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=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? I think having large patch sets in meta layers and applied with bitbake ar= e not the right solution. I would create a custom git repo and branch for large fork= s/branches like this. Possibly it could also be possible to apply patches with git through mbox = files, but I don't think this will much faster than bitbake. Hope this helps, -Mikko >=20