Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 3/9] bitbake/runqueue: initialize RunQueueExecute before printdiff rather than after

[Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Thu, 2023-12-14 at 18:28 +0100, Alexander Kanavin wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 at 15:39, Richard Purdie
> <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> 
> > I not entirely happy about this since start_worker() executes processes
> > and isn't trivial. The code is careful enough to tear them down too at
> > exit but it is all a bit of a waste of time.
> > 
> > I had wondered if we can create RunQueueExecute() without the workers
> > but as the code stands, it does poke things into them in a small
> > isolated section. I think this code flow should be tweaked to stop
> > RunQueueExecute needing the workers to be started and that would be a
> > decent cleanup of the code anyway.
> > 
> > I can take a look at that if it helps since I think I've been moving
> > towards that refactor for a while anyway?
> 
> Yes please. I haven't noticed any regression in printdiff performance,
> other than a couple of additional lines printed, but if you can make a
> better patch, that'd be welcome.

Patch on the bitbake list for this which removes more code than
it adds. We had already set everything up to do this :)

> Meanwhile I'd like to implement what I mentioned in note (1) in patch
> 4/9, as it's a real regression that I realized only today as I was
> preparing the patchset for submission and now it's bothering me :)

Yes, it is and I do agree we need to fix that.

Cheers,

Richard