Re: [PATCH v1] docs: describe how to quickly build Linux

[Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>]

On Thu, 02 Feb 2023, Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@leemhuis.info> wrote:
> On 02.02.23 16:08, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 02, 2023 at 12:15:36PM +0100, Linux kernel regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote:
>>> Then I tried creating a shallow clone like this:
>>>
>>> git clone
>>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git
>>> --depth 1 -b v6.1
>>> git remote set-branches --add origin master
>>> git fetch --all --shallow-exclude=v6.1
>>> git remote add -t linux-6.1.y linux-stable
>>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git
>>> git fetch --all --shallow-exclude=v6.1
>>>
>>> This took only roundabout 2 minutes and downloads & stores ~512 MByte
>>> data (without checkout).
>> 
>> Can we also include the option of just downloading the tarball, if it's a
>> released version? That's the fastest and most lightweight option 100% of the
>> time. :)
>
> Don't worry, that was in there and will stay in there:
>
> +   If you plan to only build one particular kernel version, download
> its source
> +   archive from https://kernel.org; afterwards extract its content to
> '~/linux/'
> +   and change into the directory created during extraction.

The trouble is, if this is for someone who needs to try kernels for
debugging, a typical idea is to ask them to revert something or apply a
patch. All the guides for that will be 'git revert' and 'git am'. Bisect
is right up there on the list too. And then they'll first grab a tarball
and fail, then do a shallow copy and fail, and then finally get a full
one... :p

BR,
Jani.


>>> Not totally sure, but the shallow clone somehow feels more appropriate
>>> for the use case (reminder, there is a "quickly" in the document title),
>>> even if such a clone is less flexible (e.g. users have to manually add
>>> stable branches they are interested it; and they need to be careful when
>>> using git fetch).
>>>
>>> That's why I now strongly consider using the shallow clone method by
>>> default in v2 of this text. Or does that also create a lot of load on
>>> the servers? Or are there other strong reason why using a shallow clone
>>> might be a bad idea for this use case?
>> 
>> As I mentioned elsewhere, this is only a problem when it's done in batch mode
>> by CI systems. A full clone uses pregenerated pack files and is very cheap,
>> because it's effectively a sendfile operation. A shallow clone requires
>> generating a brand new pack, compressing it, and then keeping it around in
>> memory for the duration of the clone process. Not a big deal when a few humans
>> here and there do it, but when 50 CI nodes do it all at once, it effectively
>> becomes a DDoS. :)
>
> Thx again for your insights, much appreciated.
>
> Ciao, Thorsten

-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center