On Wed, 2019-08-14 at 22:27 +0200, Alexander Kanavin wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 at 14:55, <richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org>
> wrote:
> > You followed up mentioning this wasn't with master-next. I think
> > there
> > is a patch in -next which will help with the empty task spin so
> > both
> > together might get us back to more normal numbers.
> > 
> As all of these patches are now in master, I re-ran the test with
> that (209f89ab8ed51ac2867ca8f749336af1ee24ab25), but without
> including the spinning task part, pressing ctrl-c just as it starts.
> The outcome is 9m42s, compared to 2m9s for the baseline
> (6c7c0cefd34067311144a1d4c01986fe0a4aef26). So the worst is fixed,
> but the slowdown is still noticeable.

Right, it still definitely needs work. Its a balancing act between
sorting out the execution bugs in the code and figuring out the
performance problem.

If anyone wants to experiment, the way I'd debug this is to run the
before and after cases with the -P option to bitbake. If you want to
exit early just make the code return where it prints "Executing tasks"
or whatever makes sense as Ctrl+C won't write the profile data.

You want the profile.log.processed file.

So save that file with the "before" commit, then save it afterwards and
look at those files and see where its spending more time.

If someone generates those two files I'll happily take a look, I'm kind
of used to reading them. There are four sets of output in there, same
data but different sorting/types, each has its uses.



Openembedded-core mailing list

Reply via email to