Hi Rafael, On Fri, Sep 01, 2023, Rafael Lopez wrote: > Hi Adrien, > > I added some results to LP#2009544 for your consideration, including tests > on mantic and lunar. > > I also tested a couple of good-looking patches in addition to PR#18151 [1]. > Summary below, see LP for detailed results and PPAs with patches. > > PR#18151 + PR#17881 [2] - up to ~2x improvement over [1] > PR#18151 + PR#17921 [3] - up to ~2.5x improvement over [1] > PR#18151 + PR#17881 [2] + PR#17921 [3] - up to ~4x improvement over [1] > (based on user CPU time) > > PR#17921 [3] might be a good candidate to SRU in addition to [1] at some > stage. It is a moderate change in Jammy as there are a number of > pre-requisite patches including refactoring. However, all said > pre-requisites are merged into 3.0 branch upstream and already included in > both Lunar and Mantic (you can cleanly cherry pick PR#17921 for those). The > performance increase is noticeable. [3] itself is not merged to 3.0 > upstream even though the pre-reqs are, see [4] for a comment on this. Seems > to fit what you described regarding upstream (not) backporting performance > patches into 3.0. It is merged into 3.1. > > PR#17881 [2] also brings noticeable improvement, though less, and has > nearly all the pre-reqs in 3.0 (and mantic/lunar). Looks like one [5] is > missing which was not backported to the 3.0 branch, though it is in 3.1. > > I haven't analysed the patches in any detail, wanted to see if they were > worth the effort performance wise first. > > Rafael > > [1] https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/18151 > [2] https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/17881 > [3] https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/17921 > [4] https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/20421#issuecomment-1457743122 > [5] https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/6127
Thanks a lot for digging into this. I thought a bit about the best way forward and I came up with three or four big steps: 1- SRU [1] to Jammy in addition to bugfixes 2- Include [2] and [3] in the next Ubuntu release (also next LTS) Per policy these cannot go straight into an SRU I think. Moreover there are a lot of patches already for Jammy which can make resolving conflict more difficult and error-prone, and while [3] from openssl-3.1 applies almost completely cleanly, [2] doesn't. 3- After OO is released, SRU [2] and [3] to Jammy 4- Bonus: SRU the same version as OO to Jammy (_maybe_ it will make more sense to skip step 3 but I can't predict it) Unfortunately we have to wait until the OO release for [2] and [3]. I've created a PPA for step 1 at https://launchpad.net/~adrien-n/+archive/ubuntu/openssl-jammy-sru . It should be ready besides last-minute debian/changelog fixes (trimming an entry and removing ~ppa*, and triple-checking the version number). I need to trigger as many autopkgtests in the PPA as I can fit, which is something I intend to do this evening and/or over the week-end but I'm pretty confident. -- Adrien -- Ubuntu-release mailing list Ubuntu-release@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-release
