From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from dan.rpsys.net ([93.97.175.187]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1URjue-0006Bv-0M for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 15:57:41 +0200 Received: from localhost (dan.rpsys.net [127.0.0.1]) by dan.rpsys.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-2.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id r3FDePe5012629 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 14:40:25 +0100 X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at dan.rpsys.net Received: from dan.rpsys.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (dan.rpsys.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 4VY2CHndjSu0 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 14:40:25 +0100 (BST) Received: from [192.168.3.10] (rpvlan0 [192.168.3.10]) (authenticated bits=0) by dan.rpsys.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-2.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id r3FDeNmu012614 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 14:40:24 +0100 Message-ID: <1366033200.8670.43.camel@ted> From: Richard Purdie To: openembedded-core Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 14:40:00 +0100 X-Mailer: Evolution 3.6.2-0ubuntu0.1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: A success of the new performance metrics X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 13:57:41 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sometimes people wonder why I take so long to merge certain patches. The issue is that if some core area of the code changes, it can have a ripple effect on the rest of the system. One of the goals of 1.4 is to improve performance. In order to demonstrate we did (and to be better able to track regressions) this meant improving our performance testing so we now have: https://wiki.yoctoproject.org/wiki/Performance_Test The QA team just produced the numbers for 1.4M6.rc1. In case its not clear, M6 is the final release milestone. The results caused them to send me an urgent email "you might want to look at the numbers". They're right, we seem to have regressed badly between M5.rc3 and M6.rc1 on multiple benchmarks. Eeek! Paul was able to track this down to a recent bitbake change: http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/poky/commit/?id=05d4f94c25b14ca99a1df01030edc00125f95405 Upon looking at the patch and thinking performance, it was immediately obvious to a seasoned bitbake performance hacker that the usage of keys() would cripple us. So its sad I didn't spot this on the initial review/testing. On the other hand its great that the benchmarks caused us to as the right questions and find a problem. Thankfully its easy to fix the problem as we don't need keys() here. Lets hope the rc2 benchmarks look a bit better :) Cheers, Richard