Brock Pytlik wrote:
> Michal Pryc wrote:
>> Brock,
>> New webrev is at:
>> http://cr.opensolaris.org/~migi/08_12_2008_bug5645_5289_4341_5150/
>>
>> I don't know why the pylint didn't catch the nit which you were
>> talking about (line 956) but this is corrected.
>>
>> Also I did clean up the unused static function
>> check_if_pkg_have_row_in_model() and removed "\" from the parts which
>> I've been changing and contained the "\" inside parens. So a little
>> bit more cleanup then the previous webrev.
>>
Brock,
> Great thanks for doing this.
Thanks for looking into the changes in the first place!

> I haven't totally groked the changes made and why they offer such a
> substantial speed up, but it's clear they do. Thanks for adding the
> details to the bug, now at least I can see what's different.
>
> I'm fine with not moving the code in 1471-1510 into Api.py (or
> image.py). I suggest the middle ground of moving it to misc.py and
> pulling it out of both client.py and packagemanager.py. While I agree
> that robust stable interfaces are desired to solve these problems, I
> still don't think we should introduce more potential problems before we
> get those interfaces by copying the code. Is that agreeable?
That is fine with me. I've made the webrev with this and hopefully you 
will give me +1 for it, so I will submit to the gate:

http://cr.opensolaris.org/~migi/09_12_2008_bug5645_5289_4341_5150/

I did pylint the code as well I've check if everything works fine (pkg 
list/pkg list -a/pkg list -af/pkg list -afv and packagemanager). I've 
also ran the tests.
-- 
all the best
Michal

> Brock
>> best
>> Michal Pryc
>>
>>
>> Michal Pryc wrote:
>>> Brock Pytlik wrote:
>>>> General comments:
>>>> Could you please update the bugs with the analysis you've done here and
>>>> your answers to Padraig's questions? I think that would be helpful.
>>> Brock,
>>> I have updated all bugs together with some DTrace measuring. I did use
>>> my script to limit measured function to __get_image_from_directory(), as
>>> this was the main change. The results are attached to bug description.
>>>
>>>> I'm not quite sure where the speedup is coming from in lines 1470-1505.
>>>> Is it because pkgs_known becomes a much smaller list? I'd be interested
>>>> in seeing the output of /opt/DTT/Python/py_calltime or py_cputime to
>>>> see
>>>> where the speed up is happening, and where the continuing bottle necks
>>>> are.
>>> Please see the results attached to bug:
>>> http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=5150
>>>
>>> We can see that the biggest bottle neck is in the call to the inventory
>>> from image.py.
>>>
>>> Another bottle neck which is not in the output from dtrace as this was
>>> not improved is in the call in the image.load_catalogs(), but it is
>>> something to address in another thread/bug.
>>>
>>>> Lines 1470-1505: I'd rather this code wasn't copied, we've been down
>>>> that road before. If the gui needs it as well, then I'd suggest
>>>> promoting it and placing it in either misc or api.py. Which one, I
>>>> don't
>>>> really feel strongly about.
>>> Before we were using the call:
>>>
>>> pkgs_known = [ pf[0] for pf in sorted(api_o.img.inventory(all_known =
>>> True)) ]
>>>
>>> I found the sort function from client.py ~1second faster for 22000 fmris
>>> that is why I did use it instead of calling sorted(). Also this doesn't
>>> need the logic of grouping the packages by calling the:
>>> def check_if_pkg_have_row_in_model(pkg, p_pkg)
>>>
>>> actually I should remove this function from packagemanager.py as well
>>> from this webrev as it is not used anymore.
>>>
>>> I don't think moving this to the api or image at this point is something
>>> good as we should start defining the proper functions for getting list
>>> of packages and once this will happen the from 1470-1505 code will be
>>> gone, but now it is needed to simplify the logic of the function.
>>>
>>>> nits:
>>>> 956: please indent this correctly
>>> Will do and propose new webrev.
>>
>

_______________________________________________
pkg-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss

Reply via email to