From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-it0-f47.google.com (mail-it0-f47.google.com [209.85.214.47]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4437771E16 for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 10:27:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-it0-f47.google.com with SMTP id x75so19393601itb.0 for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 02:27:00 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=intel-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to:references :organization:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=lQPzhSMwT7MR8hfkn14j52hR0+PdqCj3s9tpxtVVWYo=; b=pOYuAkXPJY2J44FbkrAxsjDhG+tVUsX4171HxT3iNjMwwsoz2Vr6YNkJ/RPGrzVfdS 1ZzjQKo3FkqANVekaAgQWf/pDMqYpSpGuMUPUueOlk6wYaZlZrvBWkVo5DhvF+AMvadn lMC/ttkyptDuthxORwnov05QZYwIrpCUk5Q3PISvAsdlJNm13L1+IE5Xt+JP602ESrPe jadUaLO7TP7oM58NoxGjAy+z94SrJ7nRnBE1txcmOc59D9tUs5bFGXeUuup5d2Y+SBxF kdtlxUN9f+B95AZog6+niPxXzguCssaUE5DFjXjl+lx7bdoFSm04S53i9MuXKfTAzgzA 4jnQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to :references:organization:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=lQPzhSMwT7MR8hfkn14j52hR0+PdqCj3s9tpxtVVWYo=; b=EK/kvAXZCS3bMe+EJ7U3jioDQxdNlILWPyw+QscBIVWpQTqxMM+yxKJFAwBTWtN83Y Onq+16dzMDV+hmZCUvByNcykjNXQFIHNlc0oZRKtaImfOJbvLP6ijygn6ZEb0CeTyqRY XDc7IVlJN+p3IPfDeSIDS06TCWUyrFeQ1+7agobcz+2ExZDaySwGjuvJ2EhJMNMjE9rF IMtXtu0/UZSTHEvOHUmcDshodqbFub4sVyTnAIcW9JH7GcrmP+M+bP88d0O6Dip1YISf uAUk+1+7d9wmKh0fjDgxmGxV7z9LBEFppEz8ay4IvfXCuzXRVTo9jiNEQa+SaizDNtgZ 6E3A== X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39lsqhMJ5CUSXPkIuv7MfdG02ZHJz2MzvCngvbwc+Uj73q0dhFpaDLww3zJFAIAMNv0/ X-Received: by 10.107.128.68 with SMTP id b65mr1427476iod.113.1487240820346; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 02:27:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from pohly-mobl1 (p5DE8C6B9.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [93.232.198.185]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n134sm3058600itg.19.2017.02.16.02.26.56 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 16 Feb 2017 02:26:57 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <1487240814.13854.449.camel@intel.com> From: Patrick Ohly To: Martin Jansa Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 11:26:54 +0100 In-Reply-To: References: <6787329b6c24642352cd015ae22b5dfa579ca010.1483696378.git.patrick.ohly@intel.com> Organization: Intel GmbH, Dornacher Strasse 1, D-85622 Feldkirchen/Munich X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.9-1+b1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] rm_work.bbclass: clean up sooner X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 10:27:01 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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.