On Thu, 2017-08-17 at 10:50 +0300, Markus Lehtonen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I quickly run some tests on a Xeon server, using glibc-locale as the recipe
> to build.
> 100: 154s
> 10: 162s (+5%)
> 1: 234s (+51%)
What I did to measure parallel versus serial is to run the corresponding
selftest (signing.Signing.test_signing_packages) several times for
chucks of 100, 20, 10 and 1.
Here are the results (Xeon machine also)
100:
- Ran 1 test in 51.857s
- Ran 1 test in 52.148s
- Ran 1 test in 52.048s
- Ran 1 test in 52.397s
20:
- Ran 1 test in 54.068s
- Ran 1 test in 67.295s
- Ran 1 test in 52.608s
- Ran 1 test in 51.948s
- Ran 1 test in 53.283s
10
- Ran 1 test in 55.178s
- Ran 1 test in 56.468s
- Ran 1 test in 52.735s
- Ran 1 test in 53.530s
- Ran 1 test in 53.064s
1:
- Ran 1 test in 52.604s
- Ran 1 test in 53.211s
- Ran 1 test in 53.020s
- Ran 1 test in 53.017s
- Ran 1 test in 53.029s
so at least at selftest level, there is not such an perf penalty as you
observed. This is the test involved:
@OETestID(1362)
def test_signing_packages(self):
"""
Summary: Test that packages can be signed in the package
feed
Expected: Package should be signed with the correct
key
Expected: Images can be created from signed packages
>
> Even if signing is not parallel, the difference may be explained by the
> number of rpm processes that get spawned. I would drop the factor to 10 or
> use BB_NUMBER_THREADS as Andre suggested in another email.
> - Markus
>
>
>
> On 16/08/2017, 19.00, "Leonardo Sandoval"
> <leonardo.sandoval.gonza...@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2017-08-16 at 15:28 +0300, Markus Lehtonen wrote:
> > I agree. I don't see reason for dropping parallelism completely. There
> is a real gain when running on beefier machines. Making it configurable would
> probably be best. Or just drop it to a saner value, like 20 or 10.
> > - Markus
> >
>
> I ran some tests with 100, 20 and 1 and I saw (I can rerun and provide
> times) no difference on times. gpg may be intrinsically serial so
> passing 1 or N files wont make much difference in type. The only gain
> when using file chunks is that one one process is launched.
>
> I the other hand, I tried using multiprocessing.Pool, but failed
> miserably due to file looking reasons.
>
>
>
> > On 16/08/2017, 2.53, "Mark Hatle"
> <openembedded-core-boun...@lists.openembedded.org on behalf of
> mark.ha...@windriver.com> wrote:
> >
> > It would probably be better if this was configurable with a 'safe'
> default.
> >
> > Moving from parallel to single will greatly affect the overall
> performance on
> > larger build machines (lots of memory and cores) that can handle
> the load vs a
> > typical development machine.
> >
> > --Mark
> >
> > On 8/15/17 4:40 PM, leonardo.sandoval.gonza...@linux.intel.com
> wrote:
> > > From: Leonardo Sandoval
> <leonardo.sandoval.gonza...@linux.intel.com>
> > >
> > > gpg signing in file batches (which was default to 100) is a
> memory expensive
> > > computation, causing trouble in some host machines (even on
> production AB
> > > as seen on the bugzilla ID). Also, in terms of performance, there
> is no real
> > > gain when rpm signing is done in batches. Considering the latter
> issues, perform the
> > > rpm signing serially.
> > >
> > > Log showing errors observed recently at AB workers:
> > >
> > > | gpg: signing failed: Cannot allocate memory
> > > | gpg: signing failed: Cannot allocate memory
> > > | error: gpg exec failed (2)
> > > |
> /home/pokybuild/yocto-autobuilder/yocto-worker/nightly-oe-selftest/build/build/tmp/work/core2-64-poky-linux/base-passwd/3.5.29-r0/deploy-rpms/core2_64/base-passwd-dev-3.5.29-r0.core2_64.rpm:
> > >
> > > [YOCTO #11914]
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Leonardo Sandoval
> <leonardo.sandoval.gonza...@linux.intel.com>
> > > ---
> > > meta/lib/oe/gpg_sign.py | 6 +++---
> > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/meta/lib/oe/gpg_sign.py b/meta/lib/oe/gpg_sign.py
> > > index f4d8b10e4b..5c7985a856 100644
> > > --- a/meta/lib/oe/gpg_sign.py
> > > +++ b/meta/lib/oe/gpg_sign.py
> > > @@ -45,9 +45,9 @@ class LocalSigner(object):
> > > if fsk_password:
> > > cmd += "--define '_file_signing_key_password %s'
> " % fsk_password
> > >
> > > - # Sign in chunks of 100 packages
> > > - for i in range(0, len(files), 100):
> > > - status, output = oe.utils.getstatusoutput(cmd + '
> '.join(files[i:i+100]))
> > > + # Sign packages
> > > + for f in files:
> > > + status, output = oe.utils.getstatusoutput(cmd + ' '
> + f)
> > > if status:
> > > raise bb.build.FuncFailed("Failed to sign RPM
> packages: %s" % output)
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > _______________________________________________
> > Openembedded-core mailing list
> > Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> > http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
--
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
