can you upload the full trace somewhere? the only thing it's doing around your snippets are memory allocations. if that fails/hangs i would still try to replace your ram..
does dmesg report anything crazy? On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Roumano <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > I have got some news : > > it's not related to nfs share (don't have) or a hardware memory problem > (tested with 2 different soft) > > It's impact darktable but don't cause by him : > I also have similar thing with a command who manage picture : > > The command "convert" of imagemagick hang with the same way > ( for exemple convert test.jpg -rotate 90 test2.jpg > it's take more > than 1 minute...) > > A strace of him get on this loop : > > futex(0xafdd00, FUTEX_WAKE_PRIVATE, 1) = 0 > futex(0xafdd00, FUTEX_WAKE_PRIVATE, 1) = 0 > futex(0xafdd00, FUTEX_WAKE_PRIVATE, 1) = 0 > futex(0xafdd00, FUTEX_WAKE_PRIVATE, 1) = 0 > futex(0xafdd00, FUTEX_WAIT_PRIVATE, 2, NULL) = -1 EAGAIN (Resource > temporarily unavailable) > > same thing, again & again ... > > After a long time, it's not more hang : > > futex(0xafdd00, FUTEX_WAKE_PRIVATE, 1) = 0 > munmap(0x7fd448f1c000, 528384) = 0 > brk(0xb63000) = 0xb63000 > futex(0xaeff64, FUTEX_WAKE_PRIVATE, 2147483647) = 7 > brk(0xb5d000) = 0xb5d000 > brk(0xb57000) = 0xb57000 > brk(0xb3f000) = 0xb3f000 > munmap(0x7fd4536ba000, 113840128) = 0 > stat("test2.jpg", 0xafeae0) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or > directory) > open("test2.jpg", O_RDWR|O_CREAT|O_TRUNC, 0666) = 3 > fstat(3, {st_mode=S_IFREG|0644, st_size=0, ...}) = 0 > mmap(NULL, 4096, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_ANONYMOUS, -1, 0) > = 0x7fd45a34a000 > fstat(3, {st_mode=S_IFREG|0644, st_size=0, ...}) = 0 > mmap(NULL, 28487680, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_ANONYMOUS, > -1, 0) = 0x7fd45881f000 > mmap(NULL, 28487680, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_ANONYMOUS, > -1, 0) = 0x7fd456cf4000 > mmap(NULL, 28487680, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_ANONYMOUS, > -1, 0) = 0x7fd4551c9000 > > Maybe a package is broken on my PC, do you have a idea which one ? > > Regards > > > > Le mercredi 27 f�vrier 2013 à 10:41 +1300, johannes hanika a écrit : >> [dev_pixelpipe] took 101.679 secs (0.104 CPU) processing `ombres et >> hautes lumières' [preview] >> >> ^ that sounds like something is seriously broken. maybe your ram is >> failing? or the cpu is overheating? the first number should be ~ the >> number in parentheses divided by the number of threads. do you have an >> unreliable nfs mount that freezes your kernel in the background? >> >> j. >> >> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Roumano <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > No i have a I7 2600K (4core/8 thread) & 8Go of Ram. >> > & darktable never use all my ram. >> > >> > It's not problem with xmp file, as i have tested with a fresh database & >> > import a test directory without xmp file >> > >> > >> > > It's can be a problem of mixing use of stable & git version ? >> > i don't think i have try with a fresh database & start darktable after a >> > clean : >> > >> > >> > PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ >> > COMMAND >> > 1368 roumano 20 0 2479m 761m 32m S 788 9.6 15:19.61 >> > darktable >> > >> > >> > 519 rm -rf ./.cache/darktable ./.config/darktable >> > 520 cd bin/darktable/ >> > 521 git pull >> > 522 ./build.sh >> > 523 cd "./build"; sudo make install >> > then : >> > LANC=C >> > rm -rf /tmp/dt >> > /opt/darktable/bin/darktable -d perf --configdir /tmp/dt >> >> /tmp/darktable_perf4 >> > [defaults] found a 64-bit system with 8145292 kb ram and 8 cores (0 atom >> > based) >> > [defaults] setting high quality defaults >> > [mipmap_cache] cache is empty, file >> > `/home/roumano/.cache/darktable/mipmaps-607893dafb23007a99f43d77116ba49377a19761' >> > doesn't exist >> > ... >> > ... >> > [dev_process_image] pixel pipeline processing took 0.006 secs (0.026 >> > CPU) >> > [dev] took 0.000 secs (-0.000 CPU) to load the image. >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.000 secs (0.000 CPU) initing base buffer >> > [preview] >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.003 secs (0.018 CPU) processing `balance des >> > blancs' [preview] >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.002 secs (0.006 CPU) processing `récupération des >> > hautes lumières' [preview] >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.004 secs (0.018 CPU) processing `courbe de >> > base' [preview] >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.008 secs (0.037 CPU) processing `profil de >> > couleur d'entrée' [preview] >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.043 secs (0.226 CPU) processing `ombres et hautes >> > lumières' [preview] >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.000 secs (0.000 CPU) initing base buffer [full] >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 3.207 secs (0.185 CPU) processing `contraste >> > local' [preview] >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 34.224 secs (0.046 CPU) processing `renforcer la >> > netteté' [preview] >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 37.433 secs (0.237 CPU) processing `balance des >> > blancs' [full] >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.013 secs (0.087 CPU) processing `profil de >> > couleur de sortie ' [preview] >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.008 secs (0.056 CPU) processing `récupération des >> > hautes lumières' [full] >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.004 secs (0.018 CPU) processing >> > `velvia' [preview] >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.003 secs (0.002 CPU) processing `sous- et >> > sur-exposition' [preview] >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.003 secs (0.009 CPU) processing `gamma' [preview] >> > [dev_process_preview] pixel pipeline processing took 37.563 secs (0.707 >> > CPU) >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.454 secs (2.445 CPU) processing >> > `dématriçage' [full] >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.003 secs (0.014 CPU) processing `courbe de >> > base' [full] >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.005 secs (0.032 CPU) processing `profil de >> > couleur d'entrée' [full] >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.025 secs (0.150 CPU) processing `ombres et hautes >> > lumières' [full] >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.022 secs (0.172 CPU) processing `contraste >> > local' [full] >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.006 secs (0.033 CPU) processing `renforcer la >> > netteté' [full] >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.005 secs (0.033 CPU) processing `profil de >> > couleur de sortie ' [full] >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.003 secs (0.012 CPU) processing `velvia' [full] >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.002 secs (0.002 CPU) processing `sous- et >> > sur-exposition' [full] >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.002 secs (0.013 CPU) processing `gamma' [full] >> > [dev_process_image] pixel pipeline processing took 37.971 secs (3.213 >> > CPU) >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.000 secs (-0.000 CPU) initing base buffer [full] >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.007 secs (0.041 CPU) processing `balance des >> > blancs' [full] >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.007 secs (0.032 CPU) processing `récupération des >> > hautes lumières' [full] >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.000 secs (0.000 CPU) initing base buffer >> > [preview] >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.003 secs (0.018 CPU) processing `balance des >> > blancs' [preview] >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.002 secs (0.010 CPU) processing `récupération des >> > hautes lumières' [preview] >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.004 secs (0.019 CPU) processing `courbe de >> > base' [preview] >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.010 secs (0.039 CPU) processing `profil de >> > couleur d'entrée' [preview] >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 101.679 secs (0.104 CPU) processing `ombres et >> > hautes lumières' [preview] >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.047 secs (0.033 CPU) processing `renforcer la >> > netteté' [preview] >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.011 secs (0.041 CPU) processing `profil de >> > couleur de sortie ' [preview] >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.004 secs (0.014 CPU) processing >> > `velvia' [preview] >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.003 secs (0.003 CPU) processing `sous- et >> > sur-exposition' [preview] >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.003 secs (0.008 CPU) processing `gamma' [preview] >> > [dev_process_preview] pixel pipeline processing took 101.767 secs (0.290 >> > CPU) >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 102.246 secs (2.592 CPU) processing >> > `dématriçage' [full] >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.002 secs (0.016 CPU) processing `courbe de >> > base' [full] >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.004 secs (0.031 CPU) processing `profil de >> > couleur d'entrée' [full] >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.025 secs (0.138 CPU) processing `ombres et hautes >> > lumières' [full] >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.007 secs (0.029 CPU) processing `renforcer la >> > netteté' [full] >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.005 secs (0.040 CPU) processing `profil de >> > couleur de sortie ' [full] >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.003 secs (0.016 CPU) processing `velvia' [full] >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.002 secs (0.001 CPU) processing `sous- et >> > sur-exposition' [full] >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.001 secs (0.015 CPU) processing `gamma' [full] >> > [dev_process_image] pixel pipeline processing took 102.312 secs (2.951 >> > CPU) >> > ... >> > >> > So, with a fresh version it's still very slow (but not for all images, i >> > don't see why) >> > >> > >> > Regards >> > >> > >> > Le mercredi 27 f�vrier 2013 à 10:05 +1300, johannes hanika a écrit : >> >> what computer is that? shadows/highlights is a bit expensive, but not >> >> _that_ expensive. also the randomness of which module is slow is a >> >> little worrying. do you have very little ram maybe? >> >> >> >> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 10:00 AM, Roumano <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > Hi, >> >> > >> >> > Same things with a fresh database & only 50 pictures: >> >> > >> >> > :( >> >> > >> >> > [dev_process_thumbnail] pixel pipeline processing took 0.120 secs (0.730 >> >> > CPU) >> >> > [export] creating pixelpipe took 0.148 secs (0.154 CPU) >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.042 secs (0.037 CPU) initing base buffer >> >> > [thumbnail] >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.008 secs (0.015 CPU) processing `balance des >> >> > blancs' [thumbnail] >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.003 secs (0.016 CPU) processing `récupération des >> >> > hautes lumières' [thumbnail] >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.011 secs (0.055 CPU) processing >> >> > `dématriçage' [thumbnail] >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.006 secs (0.021 CPU) processing `profil de >> >> > couleur d'entrée' [thumbnail] >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.026 secs (0.130 CPU) processing `recadrer et >> >> > pivoter' [thumbnail] >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 17.741 secs (0.000 CPU) processing `ombres et >> >> > hautes lumières' [thumbnail] >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.023 secs (0.114 CPU) processing `contraste >> >> > local' [thumbnail] >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.004 secs (0.021 CPU) processing >> >> > `niveaux' [thumbnail] >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.009 secs (0.044 CPU) processing `profil de >> >> > couleur de sortie ' [thumbnail] >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.002 secs (0.009 CPU) processing >> >> > `velvia' [thumbnail] >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.001 secs (0.002 CPU) processing `sous- et >> >> > sur-exposition' [thumbnail] >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.001 secs (0.005 CPU) processing >> >> > `gamma' [thumbnail] >> >> > [dev_process_thumbnail] pixel pipeline processing took 17.878 secs >> >> > (0.469 CPU) >> >> > >> >> > Le mercredi 27 f�vrier 2013 à 09:42 +1300, johannes hanika a écrit : >> >> >> the only thing that looks weird to me are the sql queries in between? >> >> >> maybe those take a long time just to determine the file name? can you >> >> >> try it again with 'darktable --configdir /tmp/dt' to see how a fresh >> >> >> database reacts? how many pictures do you have in that? >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 9:26 AM, Roumano <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> > Hi Johannes, >> >> >> > >> >> >> > My problem come back again. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > So i have try : >> >> >> > remove all /usr/lib/darktable (also remove complete the package from >> >> >> > my >> >> >> > OS), recompile & install the last git version... >> >> >> > >> >> >> > I don't use the opencl as i have a old graphical card & darktable >> >> >> > disable it automaticaly. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > I have try with this option (on .config/darktable/darktablerc ) >> >> >> > >> >> >> > plugins/lighttable/low_quality_thumbnails=true >> >> >> > never_use_embedded_thumb=false >> >> >> >> Same issue >> >> >> > My darkroom is not faster, at this moment, i only see freeze on >> >> >> > darkroom >> >> >> > mode when i make some modification . >> >> >> > My file are local (& on a ssd...) >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Interesting thing on these files ? : (sorry i forgot a LANG=C >> >> >> > before ...) >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > /opt/darktable/bin/darktable -d perf > /tmp/darktable_perf >> >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 14.512 secs (0.000 CPU) processing `récupération >> >> >> > des hautes lumières' [full] >> >> >> > >> >> >> > /opt/darktable/bin/darktable -d all > /tmp/darktable_perf2 >> >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 30.358 secs (0.000 CPU) processing `balance des >> >> >> > blancs' [full] >> >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 24.694 secs (0.000 CPU) processing `récupération >> >> >> > des hautes lumières' [full] >> >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 10.768 secs (0.036 CPU) processing `renforcer la >> >> >> > netteté' [preview] >> >> >> > >> >> >> > & the max of memory use : (take form cmd line) >> >> >> > [memory] before pixelpipe process >> >> >> > [memory] max address space (vmpeak): 2202060 kB >> >> >> > [memory] cur address space (vmsize): 1943652 kB >> >> >> > [memory] max used memory (vmhwm ): 895056 kB >> >> >> > [memory] cur used memory (vmrss ): 664756 kB >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Regards >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Le lundi 11 f�vrier 2013 à 09:29 +1300, johannes hanika a écrit : >> >> >> >> never saw anything like your output there. looks very broken. do you >> >> >> >> have old dsos in /usr/lib/darktable/ maybe? are you using opencl for >> >> >> >> another pipeline in parallel? do you have the full log maybe? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> these are all thumbnail processes.. you could experiment with the >> >> >> >> options >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> plugins/lighttable/low_quality_thumbnails=true >> >> >> >> never_use_embedded_thumb=false >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> (try one at a time) in your darktablerc and see if that makes any >> >> >> >> difference. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> is darkroom mode faster? are your files on a remote host? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -jo >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Roumano <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> > Hi, >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > Actualy my darktable ( git version of 09/02/2013 & stable version >> >> >> >> > 1.1.2 ) is >> >> >> >> > very slow (for some operation) & my PC is like frozen >> >> >> >> > i have tested to launch it with a fresh database : it's the same. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > I'm using it on a gentoo machine with 8core, 8Go ram & SSD for >> >> >> >> > the OS & raw >> >> >> >> > image data ... >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > If i launch it with "-d perf" : >> >> >> >> > i saw many time the "white balance" and shadow & lighlights (but >> >> >> >> > more >> >> >> >> > rarely) take lot of time but nearly all the time, O CPU, strange >> >> >> >> > isn't it ? >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > [defaults] found a 64-bit system with 8145292 kb ram and 8 cores >> >> >> >> > (0 atom >> >> >> >> > based) >> >> >> >> > [defaults] setting high quality defaults >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > ... >> >> >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 8.614 secs (0.350 CPU) processing `shadows >> >> >> >> > and >> >> >> >> > highlights' [preview] >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > ... >> >> >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.009 secs (0.029 CPU) processing `balance >> >> >> >> > des blancs' >> >> >> >> > [thumbnail] >> >> >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 10.727 secs (0.000 CPU) processing >> >> >> >> > `récupération des >> >> >> >> > hautes lumières' [thumbnail] >> >> >> >> > ... >> >> >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.148 secs (0.077 CPU) initing base buffer >> >> >> >> > [thumbnail] >> >> >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 6.682 secs (-0.000 CPU) processing `white >> >> >> >> > balance' >> >> >> >> > [thumbnail] >> >> >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.007 secs (-0.000 CPU) processing `highlight >> >> >> >> > reconstruction' [thumbnail] >> >> >> >> > ... >> >> >> >> > ... >> >> >> >> > [export] creating pixelpipe took 0.151 secs (0.173 CPU) >> >> >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.072 secs (0.037 CPU) initing base buffer >> >> >> >> > [thumbnail] >> >> >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 14.433 secs (0.000 CPU) processing `balance >> >> >> >> > des blancs' >> >> >> >> > [thumbnail] >> >> >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.003 secs (0.000 CPU) processing >> >> >> >> > `récupération des >> >> >> >> > hautes lumières' [thumbnail] >> >> >> >> > ... >> >> >> >> > ... >> >> >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 1.691 secs (0.255 CPU) initing base buffer >> >> >> >> > [thumbnail] >> >> >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 5.598 secs (0.010 CPU) processing `balance >> >> >> >> > des blancs' >> >> >> >> > [thumbnail] >> >> >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.007 secs (0.025 CPU) processing >> >> >> >> > `récupération des >> >> >> >> > hautes lumières' [thumbnail] >> >> >> >> > ... >> >> >> >> > .... >> >> >> >> > dev_pixelpipe] took 0.000 secs (-0.000 CPU) initing base buffer >> >> >> >> > [thumbnail] >> >> >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 50.678 secs (26.228 CPU) processing >> >> >> >> > `récupération des >> >> >> >> > hautes lumières' [thumbnail] >> >> >> >> > ... >> >> >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.000 secs (0.001 CPU) processing `gamma' >> >> >> >> > [thumbnail] >> >> >> >> > [dev_process_thumbnail] pixel pipeline processing took 50.703 >> >> >> >> > secs (26.311 >> >> >> >> > CPU) >> >> >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 49.118 secs (24.735 CPU) processing `balance >> >> >> >> > des >> >> >> >> > blancs' [thumbnail] >> >> >> >> > ... >> >> >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 17.581 secs (16.482 CPU) processing >> >> >> >> > `récupération des >> >> >> >> > hautes lumières' [thumbnail] >> >> >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.006 secs (0.035 CPU) processing >> >> >> >> > `dématriçage' >> >> >> >> > [thumbnail] >> >> >> >> > ... >> >> >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.038 secs (0.055 CPU) processing >> >> >> >> > `récupération des >> >> >> >> > hautes lumières' [full] >> >> >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 20.670 secs (15.234 CPU) processing `balance >> >> >> >> > des >> >> >> >> > blancs' [thumbnail] >> >> >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 21.441 secs (15.708 CPU) processing `balance >> >> >> >> > des >> >> >> >> > blancs' [thumbnail] >> >> >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 2.050 secs (1.508 CPU) processing >> >> >> >> > `récupération des >> >> >> >> > hautes lumières' [thumbnail] >> >> >> >> > ... >> >> >> >> >> But not all the time : >> >> >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.017 secs (0.026 CPU) processing `balance >> >> >> >> > des blancs' >> >> >> >> > [thumbnail] >> >> >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 1.520 secs (0.042 CPU) processing >> >> >> >> > `récupération des >> >> >> >> > hautes lumières' [thumbnail] >> >> >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.007 secs (0.034 CPU) processing >> >> >> >> > `dématriçage' >> >> >> >> > [thumbnail] >> >> >> >> > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0.015 secs (0.005 CPU) processing `réduction >> >> >> >> > du bruit >> >> >> >> > (profil)' [thumbnail] >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > Do you known why ? or it's impact only me ? >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> >> >> > Free Next-Gen Firewall Hardware Offer >> >> >> >> > Buy your Sophos next-gen firewall before the end March 2013 >> >> >> >> > and get the hardware for free! Learn more. >> >> >> >> > http://p.sf.net/sfu/sophos-d2d-feb >> >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ >> >> >> >> > darktable-devel mailing list >> >> >> >> > [email protected] >> >> >> >> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/darktable-devel >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> > >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb _______________________________________________ darktable-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/darktable-devel
