On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 07:22:55PM +0200, Martin Jansa wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 04:54:48PM +0100, richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org
> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2019-08-16 at 17:00 +0200, Martin Jansa wrote:
> > > > Will try to bump BB_NUMBER_THREADS from 8 to 72.
> > >
> > > I've tried to
On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 04:54:48PM +0100, richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org
wrote:
> On Fri, 2019-08-16 at 17:00 +0200, Martin Jansa wrote:
> > > Will try to bump BB_NUMBER_THREADS from 8 to 72.
> >
> > I've tried to remove icecc.bbclass inherit (because it does things
> > while parsing and RP
On Fri, 2019-08-16 at 17:00 +0200, Martin Jansa wrote:
> > Will try to bump BB_NUMBER_THREADS from 8 to 72.
>
> I've tried to remove icecc.bbclass inherit (because it does things
> while parsing and RP probably doesn't have it inherited), but that
> didn't save much time.
>
> All 3 tests were
> Will try to bump BB_NUMBER_THREADS from 8 to 72.
I've tried to remove icecc.bbclass inherit (because it does things while
parsing and RP probably doesn't have it inherited), but that didn't save
much time.
All 3 tests were with bitbake 18d4a31fdcec1f0e5d2199d6142f0ce833fca1a7
94m19.081s 8
On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 05:05:48PM +0200, Martin Jansa wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 10:04:08AM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote:
> > On Mon, 2019-08-12 at 20:26 +, Peter Kjellerstedt wrote:
> > > Comparing that build to a corresponding do-nothing build with Thud,
> > > the time difference
On Thu, 2019-08-15 at 14:56 +0100, richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org
wrote:
> On Thu, 2019-08-15 at 14:56 +0200, Alexander Kanavin wrote:
> What is really odd is this on both traces:
>
>524436 405.1020.001 405.2660.001
>
On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 10:04:08AM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-08-12 at 20:26 +, Peter Kjellerstedt wrote:
> > Comparing that build to a corresponding do-nothing build with Thud,
> > the time difference matches those three minutes where I have no idea
> > what bitbake is doing
On Thu, 2019-08-15 at 14:56 +0200, Alexander Kanavin wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 at 23:25,
> wrote:
> > 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
On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 at 23:25, wrote:
> 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
On Wed, 2019-08-14 at 22:27 +0200, Alexander Kanavin wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 at 14:55,
> 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
On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 at 14:55, 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
On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 7:57 AM Peter Kjellerstedt
wrote:
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org
> >
> > Sent: den 14 augusti 2019 14:56
> > To: Alexander Kanavin
> > Cc: Peter Kjellerstedt ; Khem Raj
> > ; OE-core > c...@lists.openembedded.org>
> >
> -Original Message-
> From: richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org
>
> Sent: den 14 augusti 2019 14:56
> To: Alexander Kanavin
> Cc: Peter Kjellerstedt ; Khem Raj
> ; OE-core c...@lists.openembedded.org>
> Subject: Re: [OE-core] Long delays with latest bitbake (was: [PATCH
> 1/7]
On Wed, 2019-08-14 at 14:08 +0200, Alexander Kanavin wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 at 13:36,
> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2019-08-14 at 13:25 +0200, Alexander Kanavin wrote:
> > > On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 at 21:18, Richard Purdie <
> > > richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > > > I had a glance at the
On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 02:08:01PM +0200, Alexander Kanavin wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 at 13:36, wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2019-08-14 at 13:25 +0200, Alexander Kanavin wrote:
> > > On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 at 21:18, Richard Purdie <
> > > richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > > > I had a glance
On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 at 14:08, Alexander Kanavin
wrote:
>
> This might sound slightly crazy but can you try commenting out this
>> line in runqueue.py:
>>
>> logger.debug(2, "Holding off tasks %s" %
>> pprint.pformat(self.holdoff_tasks))
>>
>> ?
>>
>
> Even crazier is the outcome: it helped! The
On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 at 13:36, wrote:
> On Wed, 2019-08-14 at 13:25 +0200, Alexander Kanavin wrote:
> > On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 at 21:18, Richard Purdie <
> > richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > > I had a glance at the profile output from master-next and the
> > > problem
> > > wasn't
On Wed, 2019-08-14 at 13:25 +0200, Alexander Kanavin wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 at 21:18, Richard Purdie <
> richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > I had a glance at the profile output from master-next and the
> > problem
> > wasn't where I thought it would be, it was in the scheduler
On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 at 21:18, Richard Purdie <
richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> I had a glance at the profile output from master-next and the problem
> wasn't where I thought it would be, it was in the scheduler code. That
> is good as those classes are effectively independent of the
On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 12:18 PM Richard Purdie
wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2019-08-13 at 10:04 +0100, Richard Purdie wrote:
> > On Mon, 2019-08-12 at 20:26 +, Peter Kjellerstedt wrote:
> > > Comparing that build to a corresponding do-nothing build with Thud,
> > > the time difference matches those
On Tue, 2019-08-13 at 10:04 +0100, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-08-12 at 20:26 +, Peter Kjellerstedt wrote:
> > Comparing that build to a corresponding do-nothing build with Thud,
> > the time difference matches those three minutes where I have no
> > idea
> > what bitbake is doing now
On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 at 11:04, Richard Purdie <
richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> We talked on irc and you pointed at the commit things started to go
> wrong. Just to summarise things for the benefit of the list, this is
> some quick testing I did:
>
> "bitbake -p; time bitbake
On Mon, 2019-08-12 at 20:26 +, Peter Kjellerstedt wrote:
> Comparing that build to a corresponding do-nothing build with Thud,
> the time difference matches those three minutes where I have no idea
> what bitbake is doing now that it didn’t need to do before…
>
> Hopefully these time
23 matches
Mail list logo
