From: <Mikko.Rapeli@bmw.de>
To: <alex.kanavin@gmail.com>
Cc: peter.kjellerstedt@axis.com, openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
Subject: Re: Long delays with latest bitbake (was: [PATCH 1/7] insane.bbclass: in file-rdeps do not look into RDEPENDS recursively)
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2019 12:50:15 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190814125014.GC3459@hiutale> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CANNYZj_7t+dB0FOUjGocHLzACtLquqqGV3R1awiQe=27JwQa3Q@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 02:08:01PM +0200, Alexander Kanavin wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 at 13:36, <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2019-08-14 at 13:25 +0200, Alexander Kanavin wrote:
> > > On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 at 21:18, Richard Purdie <
> > > richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > > > I had a glance at the profile output from master-next and the
> > > > problem
> > > > wasn't where I thought it would be, it was in the scheduler code.
> > > > That
> > > > is good as those classes are effectively independent of the other
> > > > changes and hence are a separate fix.
> > > >
> > > > I've put a patch in -next which takes the above test to 36s which
> > > > is
> > > > close to the older bitbake.
> > > >
> > > > Could be interesting to see how it looks for others and different
> > > > workloads.
> > >
> > > I just tried the same test I did yesterday with
> > > ab56d466452148e5fce330d279d13e2495eceb1f. Unfortunately it doesn't
> > > seem to improve things much: bitbake is stuck at "NOTE: Executing
> > > Tasks" for 15 minutes now.
> >
> > This might sound slightly crazy but can you try commenting out this
> > line in runqueue.py:
> >
> > logger.debug(2, "Holding off tasks %s" %
> > pprint.pformat(self.holdoff_tasks))
> >
> > ?
> >
>
> Even crazier is the outcome: it helped! The whole thing completed after
> 15m49secons (with much of the time going to the empty task spin), that's
> some 3 minutes slower, but certainly it's usable again.
>
> I have not enabled the hash server at any point.
Indeed, commenting that debug statement out removes few minutes of the
bitbake preparation times.
Here is a time stamped output from master branch:
2019-08-14_14:29:24
2019-08-14_14:29:35 Initialising tasks...done.
2019-08-14_14:32:41 Checking sstate mirror object availability...done.
2019-08-14_14:32:41 Sstate summary: Wanted 436 Found 426 Missed 10 Current 2407 (97% match, 99% complete)
2019-08-14_14:32:41 NOTE: Executing Tasks
2019-08-14_14:32:52 NOTE: Setscene tasks completed
And with the comment removed:
2019-08-14_14:35:10
2019-08-14_14:35:21 Initialising tasks...done.
2019-08-14_14:35:30 Checking sstate mirror object availability...done.
2019-08-14_14:35:30 Sstate summary: Wanted 436 Found 426 Missed 10 Current 2407 (97% match, 99% complete)
2019-08-14_14:35:30 NOTE: Executing Tasks
And just in case back to master branch state:
2019-08-14_14:41:32
2019-08-14_14:41:43 Initialising tasks...done.
2019-08-14_14:45:02 Checking sstate mirror object availability...done.
2019-08-14_14:45:02 Sstate summary: Wanted 436 Found 426 Missed 10 Current 2407 (97% match, 99% complete)
2019-08-14_14:45:02 NOTE: Executing Tasks
I did not flush caches in between and I stopped the builds once bitbake started doing stuff, so I think sstate cache was completely buffered in memory
from file system and IO delays did not affect the timings.
Change to poky was exactly:
--- a/bitbake/lib/bb/runqueue.py
+++ b/bitbake/lib/bb/runqueue.py
@@ -2216,7 +2216,7 @@ class RunQueueExecute:
for dep in self.sqdata.sq_covered_tasks[tid]:
if dep not in self.runq_complete:
self.holdoff_tasks.add(dep)
- logger.debug(2, "Holding off tasks %s" % pprint.pformat(self.holdoff_tasks))
+ # logger.debug(2, "Holding off tasks %s" % pprint.pformat(self.holdoff_tasks))
def process_possible_migrations(self):
changes = False
-Mikko
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-08-14 12:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-08-12 20:26 Long delays with latest bitbake (was: [PATCH 1/7] insane.bbclass: in file-rdeps do not look into RDEPENDS recursively) Peter Kjellerstedt
2019-08-13 9:04 ` Richard Purdie
2019-08-13 13:20 ` Alexander Kanavin
2019-08-13 19:18 ` Richard Purdie
2019-08-14 4:06 ` Khem Raj
2019-08-14 11:25 ` Alexander Kanavin
2019-08-14 11:36 ` richard.purdie
2019-08-14 12:08 ` Alexander Kanavin
2019-08-14 12:43 ` Alexander Kanavin
2019-08-14 12:50 ` Mikko.Rapeli [this message]
2019-08-14 12:55 ` richard.purdie
2019-08-14 14:57 ` Peter Kjellerstedt
2019-08-14 15:19 ` Khem Raj
2019-08-14 20:27 ` Alexander Kanavin
2019-08-14 21:25 ` richard.purdie
2019-08-15 12:56 ` Alexander Kanavin
2019-08-15 13:56 ` richard.purdie
2019-08-15 22:44 ` Richard Purdie
2019-08-15 15:05 ` Martin Jansa
2019-08-16 10:24 ` Martin Jansa
2019-08-16 15:00 ` Martin Jansa
2019-08-16 15:54 ` richard.purdie
2019-08-16 17:22 ` Martin Jansa
2019-08-19 21:23 ` Martin Jansa
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=20190814125014.GC3459@hiutale \
--to=mikko.rapeli@bmw.de \
--cc=alex.kanavin@gmail.com \
--cc=openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org \
--cc=peter.kjellerstedt@axis.com \
/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