Hi Adrien, Thanks for working on the SRU. FWIW, I tested the packages from your PPA, looks good to me and results match previous tests performed. Let me know if I can do any further testing or assist in any way to expedite the SRU.
Regards, Rafael On Sat, Sep 9, 2023 at 1:50 AM Adrien Nader <adr...@notk.org> wrote: > 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
