From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.analogue-micro.com (mail.analogue-micro.com [217.144.149.242]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8452C606D1 for ; Tue, 19 Jul 2016 09:21:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail.analogue-micro.com (Postfix, from userid 999) id 5393268A01A; Tue, 19 Jul 2016 10:21:57 +0100 (BST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on loki.analogue-micro-ltd.com X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.5 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_50, DNS_FROM_AHBL_RHSBL autolearn=no version=3.3.2 Received: from zeus.mlbassoc.com (unknown [10.8.0.2]) by mail.analogue-micro.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC8F768A01B; Tue, 19 Jul 2016 10:21:54 +0100 (BST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by zeus.mlbassoc.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8763367400B0; Tue, 19 Jul 2016 11:21:54 +0200 (CEST) To: Paul Eggleton References: <578DC9D2.1060607@mlbassoc.com> <9795063.LvlJDZtIeJ@peggleto-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com> From: Gary Thomas Message-ID: <578DF132.7020101@mlbassoc.com> Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2016 11:21:54 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <9795063.LvlJDZtIeJ@peggleto-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com> Cc: bitbake-devel@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: New progress meters X-BeenThere: bitbake-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussion that advance bitbake development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2016 09:22:01 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 2016-07-19 11:16, Paul Eggleton wrote: > Hi Gary, > > On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 08:33:54 Gary Thomas wrote: >> I quite like the new progress meters, but they seem to not be very >> accurate. I was just rebuilding webkitgtk and got this: >> >> 0: webkitgtk-2.12.3-r0 do_compile (pid 30494) 96% >> |####################################### | ETA: 0:02:58 >> >> Sadly, it sat there, waffling between 02:58 and 03:44 for about >> 10 minutes... >> >> * How is this [estimate] calculated? >> * Should I be concerned when it's not accurate (or even moving)? > > There are a few different types of progress handling for different types of > tasks. To be specific in this example, for recipes that inherit cmake during > do_compile we report the progress that the cmake-produced makefile prints out. > The ETA, which is implemented in the python-progressbar code we are using is > kind of a rolling average calculated based on recent progress, so it's > possible it's inaccurate in this instance if there are places where it stalls. > Python-progressbar has an alternative ETA mode which we could try, but to be > honest when the progress value sent to it isn't evenly apportioned with > respect to time and we don't have any weighting information, there's not a lot > anyone can do to estimate time remaining accurately. If it's truly bothersome > we could just turn off the ETA display I suppose. > >> n.b. I wasn't sure the best place for this question, the bitbake >> list, generic Yocto or OE-core. Feel free to redirect as needed. > > Technically this is an OE question although I know that isn't obvious - there > are parts of this that are implemented in BitBake and parts in OE, so asking > here is fine. Thanks. I was mostly asking to see what the expected "user experience" should be since the webkitgtk (which takes FOREVER to build) seemed a bit misleading/optimistic. For the most part, I do like the additional information. -- ------------------------------------------------------------ Gary Thomas | Consulting for the MLB Associates | Embedded world ------------------------------------------------------------