Openembedded Core Discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Patrick Ohly <patrick.ohly@intel.com>
To: Martin Jansa <martin.jansa@gmail.com>
Cc: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer
	<openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] rm_work.bbclass: clean up sooner
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 11:26:54 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1487240814.13854.449.camel@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+chaQebkND=ipbVvDGAJo=o79SsucECyyNgaaMRYyiOuVqZ2g@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, 2017-02-15 at 19:32 +0100, Martin Jansa wrote:
> Are all changes necessary for this to work already in master?

Yes.

> Yesterday I've noticed that rm_work for some components which are
> early in the dependency (like qtbase) are executed relatively late
> (together with do_package_qa).

Could do_rm_work run before do_package_qa? rm_work.bbclass doesn't know
that, and therefore schedules do_rm_work after do_package_qa.

If yes, then adding a list of tasks that can be ignored would be
trivial. This can be a variable, so a recipe can even add their own
ones, if necessary.

> So I've tried very naive way to find out if the rm_work tasks are
> executed sooner or not just by comparing Task IDs in build of the same
> image built from scratch (without sstate) with Dizzy, Morty and
> current master.

Interesting, I hadn't thought of testing it like that.

> If we dismiss the strange case in rm_work.tasks.master.qemux86 then it
> seems to perform at least as good as old completion BB_SCHEDULER.
> 
> 
> But I wanted to ask if there is something else we can do or you were
> planing to do, because IIRC you shared some longer analysis of what
> could be improved here and I'm not sure if you managed to implement it
> all.

The other ideas that I mentioned at some point didn't pan out as
intended. In particular allowing do_rm_work tasks to run when the normal
task limit was reached didn't have a big effect and the implementation
was a hack, so I dropped that.

> It feels to me that rm_work has high priority, but still it's
> "blocked" by e.g. do_package_qa which gets executed late and then
> immediately followed by rm_work.

That should be easy to change, perhaps like this (untested):

RM_WORK_TASKS_WHITELIST = "do_build do_package_qa"

        deps = set(bb.build.preceedtask('do_build', True, d))
	whitelist = d.getVar('RM_WORK_TASKS_WHITELIST').split()
        deps.difference_update(whitelist)
        # In practice, addtask() here merely updates the dependencies.
        bb.build.addtask('do_rm_work', 'do_build', ' '.join(deps), d)


-- 
Best Regards, Patrick Ohly

The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although
I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way
represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak
on behalf of Intel on this matter.





  reply	other threads:[~2017-02-16 10:27 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-01-06  9:55 [PATCH 0/3] rm_work enhancements Patrick Ohly
2017-01-06  9:55 ` [PATCH 1/3] gcc-source.inc: cleanly disable do_rm_work Patrick Ohly
2017-01-09 18:47   ` Khem Raj
2017-01-06  9:55 ` [PATCH 2/3] rm_work_and_downloads.bbclass: more aggressively minimize disk usage Patrick Ohly
2017-01-06 18:31   ` Randy Witt
2017-01-06 19:22     ` Patrick Ohly
2017-01-06 21:29       ` Randy Witt
2017-01-07  8:09         ` Patrick Ohly
2017-01-09 10:25           ` Patrick Ohly
2017-01-09 18:17             ` Randy Witt
2017-01-06  9:55 ` [PATCH 3/3] rm_work.bbclass: clean up sooner Patrick Ohly
2017-02-15 18:32   ` Martin Jansa
2017-02-16 10:26     ` Patrick Ohly [this message]
2017-03-01 15:52       ` Martin Jansa
2017-03-01 16:44         ` Patrick Ohly
2017-03-01 18:47           ` Martin Jansa
2017-03-02 10:13             ` Patrick Ohly
2017-03-02  9:38         ` Patrick Ohly

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=1487240814.13854.449.camel@intel.com \
    --to=patrick.ohly@intel.com \
    --cc=martin.jansa@gmail.com \
    --cc=openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox