From: Nicola Vetrini <nicola.vetrini@bugseng.com>
To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
Cc: xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>,
"Roger Pau Monné" <roger.pau@citrix.com>,
"Bertrand Marquis" <Bertrand.Marquis@arm.com>,
"Michal Orzel" <michal.orzel@amd.com>,
"Anthony PERARD" <anthony.perard@vates.tech>,
"Andrew Cooper" <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>,
"Stefano Stabellini" <sstabellini@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Current Eclair analysis
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2025 16:53:55 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <bbc741428e680a4b5b08442558f85941@bugseng.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <67d26857-6b7a-4b5d-8bdb-c973885926a0@suse.com>
On 2025-12-11 11:50, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 11.12.2025 11:08, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
>> On 2025-12-11 11:00, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 10.12.2025 19:14, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>>> The Eclair step is now the dominating aspect of wallclock time.
>>>> While
>>>> the recent changes were a step in the right direction, we need some
>>>> adjustments.
>>>
>>> One other question, related to the "dominating" aspect, but not to
>>> any
>>> of the points raised so far. Can scan results possibly be recorded
>>> somehow, somewhere, such that upon re-scanning the same tree
>>> (pre-push
>>> test followed by post-push test) the identical re-scan can be
>>> avoided?
>>> And perhaps even incrementally - if only .c files change within a
>>> (set
>>> of) commit(s), only re-scan those, rather than everything? Could be
>>> extended to .h files if dependencies were properly taken into
>>> account.
>>
>> We support incremental analysis, but it requires non-trivial changes
>> to
>> the current Xen integration. If someone wants to invest time and/or
>> resources in it, I can support the effort, but it requires a fair deal
>> of rearrangements of scripting in order to avoid losing information
>
> What about the initial part of the question, scanning the exact same
> tree
> a 2nd time? Is that merely a special case of "incremental", and hence
> would
> require the same amount of effort?
>
> Jan
I originally misinterpreted your question, and in fact I had an internal
discussion on this. What you are asking is not directly supported by
eclair because ECLAIR acts based on compiler invocations triggered by
the build system, so two different builds are entirely independent of
each other, unless a correspondence between analyzed artifacts (analysis
frames in ECLAIR jargon) is estabilished. Overall, in our opinion this
is best done not internally by ECLAIR, but at a higher (or lower,
depending on how you represent it) level, which is the build system
level. The idea is basically as follows:
- set up ccache with a remote storage backend (one per machine where
runners are hosted is probably the best approximation);
- let ccache be used transparently across multiple runs; it will trigger
re-compilation only when the file is not already in its cache, and as a
consequence trigger the analysis of that TU or program. Due to the
dockerization of builds and how gitlab is set up this may require some
fumbling with env vars to point to the right compilation cache, but
should be doable without too much effort;
- For each run:
- fetch the result from the base run (for some meaning of "base")
- run an eclair incremental analysis using option +project. This runs
the Xen build as usual, but using ccache (I think other projects such as
Zephyr already do something similar in their CI);
- load new results in the old database, substituting evidences related
to the same TU (done with a specific eclair_report flag).
In essence this covers both usecases, but it requires a nontrivial
amount of effort.
N.B. ECLAIR does not use ccache internally: its concept of incremental
analysis is completely orthogonal to the one that ccache uses.
--
Nicola Vetrini, B.Sc.
Software Engineer
BUGSENG (https://bugseng.com)
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/nicola-vetrini-a42471253
prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-12-11 15:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-12-10 18:14 Current Eclair analysis Andrew Cooper
2025-12-10 19:57 ` Nicola Vetrini
2025-12-11 9:04 ` Jan Beulich
2025-12-11 16:07 ` Andrew Cooper
2025-12-11 10:00 ` Jan Beulich
2025-12-11 10:08 ` Nicola Vetrini
2025-12-11 10:50 ` Jan Beulich
2025-12-11 15:53 ` Nicola Vetrini [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=bbc741428e680a4b5b08442558f85941@bugseng.com \
--to=nicola.vetrini@bugseng.com \
--cc=Bertrand.Marquis@arm.com \
--cc=andrew.cooper3@citrix.com \
--cc=anthony.perard@vates.tech \
--cc=jbeulich@suse.com \
--cc=michal.orzel@amd.com \
--cc=roger.pau@citrix.com \
--cc=sstabellini@kernel.org \
--cc=xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.