[Touch-packages] [Bug 1638695] Re: Python 2.7.12 performance regression

zesty is EOL ** Changed in: python2.7 (Ubuntu Zesty) Status: Fix Committed => Won't Fix -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to python2.7 in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1638695 Title: Python

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1638695] Re: Python 2.7.12 performance regression

This bug was fixed in the package python2.7 - 2.7.12-1ubuntu0~16.04.3 --- python2.7 (2.7.12-1ubuntu0~16.04.3) xenial-proposed; urgency=medium * Some performance improvements: LP: #1638695. - Build the _math.o object file without -fPIC for static builds. * Rename md5_*

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1638695] Re: Python 2.7.12 performance regression

_math.o is now built without -fPIC for the static builds. ** Tags removed: verification-needed-zesty ** Tags added: verification-done-zesty ** Tags removed: verification-needed-xenial ** Tags added: verification-done-xenial ** Tags removed: verification-needed ** Tags added: verification-done

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1638695] Re: Python 2.7.12 performance regression

Hello Major, or anyone else affected, Accepted python2.7 into xenial-proposed. The package will build now and be available at https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/python2.7/2.7.12-1ubuntu0~16.04.3 in a few hours, and then in the -proposed repository. Please help us by testing this new package.

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1638695] Re: Python 2.7.12 performance regression

Hello Major, or anyone else affected, Accepted python2.7 into zesty-proposed. The package will build now and be available at https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/python2.7/2.7.13-2ubuntu0.2 in a few hours, and then in the -proposed repository. Please help us by testing this new package. See

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1638695] Re: Python 2.7.12 performance regression

** Description changed: + SRU: Looks like only the math.o build without -fPIC makes it into the + SRU. There shouldn't be any regression potential when building without + -fPIC for the static interpreter. Acceptance criteria is running the + benchmarks and not showing any performance

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1638695] Re: Python 2.7.12 performance regression

Seth: those values were somehow calculated from a number of runs. A single pyperformance benchmark run took ~20 minutes and I repeated each of them 3 times. I still have the 'raw' outputs of pyperformance if needed. From those I see that there are at least 3 values for each test and also there is

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1638695] Re: Python 2.7.12 performance regression

Xenial pyperformance results with -fstack-protector-strong changed to -fstack-protector. ** Attachment added: "xenial-fsp-01.json" https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/python2.7/+bug/1638695/+attachment/5015696/+files/xenial-fsp-01.json -- You received this bug notification because you

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1638695] Re: Python 2.7.12 performance regression

How long did the benchmarks actually take? The sum of the runtimes appears to be about 11 seconds. Is that correct? Is that long enough to draw useful conclusions from the results? Thanks -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1638695] Re: Python 2.7.12 performance regression

I don't feel like the change from fstack-protector-strong to fstack-protector should be made. The performance testing results in the spreadsheet don't suggest that the change positively impacts performance in a meaningful way. fstack-protector-strong slightly outperforms fstack-protector in some

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1638695] Re: Python 2.7.12 performance regression

Hello Matthias. Is there any progress with applying those features to Xenial? Please let me know if you need any testing to be done. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to python2.7 in Ubuntu.

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1638695] Re: Python 2.7.12 performance regression

I have managed to prepare the static build without PIE on top the latest artful version [1]. I have added the results to the same spreadsheet. What I've found particularly interesting are the results of the python_startup & python_startup_no_site tests. In subsequent runs (the result in the

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1638695] Re: Python 2.7.12 performance regression

Thanks for the explanation Matthias. I have added the Xenial variant you asked for to the spreadsheet. The artful will follow once I'm after a couple of days out. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to python2.7 in

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1638695] Re: Python 2.7.12 performance regression

thanks for doing that! more interesting numbers would be: - artful with -fno-PIE -no-pie for the static build - xenial with just no_fpic the reason I'm asking for the latter is that you'll break a lot of packages, needing to rebuild $ wc -l debian/pyfpe-breaks.Debian 70

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1638695] Re: Python 2.7.12 performance regression

Matthias, I have made a series of pyperformance benchmarks [1] to compare the influence of the factors listed by Elvis on Xenial and Artful. All runs were done on the same machine (metal) with a fresh Ubuntu cloud image. My observations confirm that both: changing fpectl and fPIC for _math.c

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1638695] Re: Python 2.7.12 performance regression

This bug was fixed in the package python2.7 - 2.7.14~rc1-3ubuntu1 --- python2.7 (2.7.14~rc1-3ubuntu1) artful; urgency=medium * Regenerate the _PyFPE breaks list for Ubuntu. -- Matthias Klose Tue, 05 Sep 2017 20:19:52 +0200 ** Changed in: python2.7 (Ubuntu)

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1638695] Re: Python 2.7.12 performance regression

** Also affects: python2.7 (Ubuntu Xenial) Importance: Undecided Status: New ** Changed in: python2.7 (Ubuntu Xenial) Status: New => Confirmed ** Changed in: python2.7 (Ubuntu Xenial) Importance: Undecided => High -- You received this bug notification because you are a

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1638695] Re: Python 2.7.12 performance regression

thanks for the detailed analysis. - #1: I'm stopping now to build the _fpectl module for the upcoming 17.10 release. I'm hesitant to disable it for 16.04. - #2: 2.7.11-6: That's a fix done a year ago, I can't remember why I changed that. I'll try to remember ... _math.c is mentioned

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1638695] Re: Python 2.7.12 performance regression

The attachment "0001-Disable-fpectl-and-fPIC-on-Modules-_math.c.patch" seems to be a patch. If it isn't, please remove the "patch" flag from the attachment, remove the "patch" tag, and if you are a member of the ~ubuntu-reviewers, unsubscribe the team. [This is an automated message performed by

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1638695] Re: Python 2.7.12 performance regression

We'll need the package maintainers to chime in on this. Attached is a patch that disables harmful settings. ** Patch added: "0001-Disable-fpectl-and-fPIC-on-Modules-_math.c.patch"

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1638695] Re: Python 2.7.12 performance regression

Thanks for the deep dive, Elvis! :) Is it possible to adjust some of these settings in the Ubuntu packages, or is just the way it will be going forward? -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to python2.7 in Ubuntu.

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1638695] Re: Python 2.7.12 performance regression

After much testing I found what is causing the regression in 16.04 and later. There are several distinct causes which are attributed to the choices made in debian/rules and the changes in GCC. Cause #1: the decision to compile `Modules/_math.c` with `-fPIC` *and* link it statically into the

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1638695] Re: Python 2.7.12 performance regression

Any updates on this? Are there plans to release a faster python build for Xenial? -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to python2.7 in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1638695 Title: Python 2.7.12

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1638695] Re: Python 2.7.12 performance regression

** Changed in: python2.7 (Ubuntu) Assignee: Louis Bouchard (louis) => (unassigned) -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to python2.7 in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1638695 Title: Python 2.7.12

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1638695] Re: Python 2.7.12 performance regression

Here is the pastebin for better readability : http://paste.ubuntu.com/24078834/ -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to python2.7 in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1638695 Title: Python 2.7.12 performance

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1638695] Re: Python 2.7.12 performance regression

Following the results of the previous comparison, i've used Jorge's profiling example on the 'call_method' bench for trusty stock, no LTO, no PGO and Xenial stock, no PGO and no LTO. Here are the results. Notice the difference between Trusty Stock & Trusty nopgo, as opposed to the execution

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1638695] Re: Python 2.7.12 performance regression

** Changed in: python2.7 (Ubuntu) Assignee: Jorge Niedbalski (niedbalski) => Louis Bouchard (louis-bouchard) -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to python2.7 in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1638695

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1638695] Re: Python 2.7.12 performance regression

Hello, Following doko's advice, I ran a set of test with PGO & LTO optimization disabled. Here are the results : https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tTlEOvMypwKwi99XHjvuQFE14_jpBBLy0-Mk6bjkvL0/edit#gid=1169944329 This may bring more light to the investigation as it appear that with LTO &

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1638695] Re: Python 2.7.12 performance regression

** Tags added: uosci -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to python2.7 in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1638695 Title: Python 2.7.12 performance regression Status in python2.7 package in Ubuntu:

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1638695] Re: Python 2.7.12 performance regression

Hello, The tests are run in LXC containers on a bare metal server with two physical CPU, 6 cores, 2 threads per core (Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2640 0 @ 2.50GHz). Following's doko's advice, I have built two new versions, one with LTO optimisation disabled and the other one with PGO optimisation

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1638695] Re: Python 2.7.12 performance regression

My testing was done on Xen virtual machines, KVM virtual machines, and bare metal. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to python2.7 in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1638695 Title: Python 2.7.12

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1638695] Re: Python 2.7.12 performance regression

Where are these tests being executed on? Are these virtual machines or bare-metal instances? If these are VMs, what hypervisor is being used? -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to python2.7 in Ubuntu.

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1638695] Re: Python 2.7.12 performance regression

Here are the results of the comparative tests I ran : https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1MyNBPVZlBeic1OLqVKe_bcPk2deO_pQs9trIfOFefM0/edit#gid=2034603487 It confirms the assumptions but unfortunately, rebuilding 2.7.12 without the -fstack-protector-strong leads to worse performances than the

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1638695] Re: Python 2.7.12 performance regression

Hello, Just to clarify something that I have just realized using : $ pyperformance run -p={some python} means that {some python} will be used to run PYPERFORMANCE, not to run the benchmarks !!! So changing -p to use different builds of python will not run proper comparaison of the different

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1638695] Re: Python 2.7.12 performance regression

Just a small precision about Jorge's last comment above (): "I cleaned out all the resulting callgrind files removing the files smaller than 100k and the ones that were not loading the cPickle extension

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1638695] Re: Python 2.7.12 performance regression

Hello, I have been working to track down the origin of the performance penalty exposed by this bug. All the tests that I am performing are made on top of a locally compiled version of python 2.7.12 (from upstream sources, not applying any ubuntu patch on it) built with different versions of

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1638695] Re: Python 2.7.12 performance regression

** Changed in: python2.7 (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided => High ** Changed in: python2.7 (Ubuntu) Assignee: (unassigned) => Jorge Niedbalski (niedbalski) -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to python2.7 in

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1638695] Re: Python 2.7.12 performance regression

This may not be the best comparison, as I don't have gcc 4.8.0 (I could test with gcc 4.8.5 though) Also, using a different toolchain, glibc-2.22 as well. But here are my outputs, attached showing 4.9.3 and and 5.4.0. ** Attachment added: "gentoo-performance-compare"

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1638695] Re: Python 2.7.12 performance regression

Hello, I am in the process of verifying this performance regression on a 16.04 Xenial machine using the kernel Linux-4.4.0-38. I ran a locally compiled python 2.7.12 version built with different versions of GCC, 5.3.1 (current) and 4.8.0 both coming from the Ubuntu archives. The benchmark suite

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1638695] Re: Python 2.7.12 performance regression

Thanks for confirming that, Matthias. Testing with GCC 4.8 seemed to yield (mostly) better results. I put the data into a Google Sheet: https://goo.gl/9gW82j Out of the 10 pyperformance tests: * 3 tests were actually faster with python compiled w/gcc-4.8 * 4 tests were slightly slower

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1638695] Re: Python 2.7.12 performance regression

yes, setting CC=gcc-4.8 CXX=g++-4.8 ./configure ... -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to python2.7 in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1638695 Title: Python 2.7.12 performance regression Status in

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1638695] Re: Python 2.7.12 performance regression

I can try that. Just to be clear, you're suggesting to do the following: 1) Install gcc-4.8 on 16.04 2) Compile 2.7.12 with gcc-4.8 on 16.04 3) Re-run tests Did I get that right? -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1638695] Re: Python 2.7.12 performance regression

please try to build using gcc-4.8 on 16.04 LTS (it's still available in the archive) -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to python2.7 in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1638695 Title: Python 2.7.12

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1638695] Re: Python 2.7.12 performance regression

Hello Matthias, I'm sorry for the confusion there. What I meant is that I compiled 2.7.12 on 14.04 and found that it had the same performance as 2.7.6 (from the default Ubuntu python package) on 14.04. I also loaded Xenial's kernel on the 14.04 installation and found no performance difference

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1638695] Re: Python 2.7.12 performance regression

> I compiled python 2.7.12 from source on 14.04 > and found the performance to be unchanged there. unchanged compared to what? the python binaries in 14.04, or 16.04? could you check with a python version in between? e.g. https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-toolchain-r/+archive/ubuntu/ppa -- You

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1638695] Re: Python 2.7.12 performance regression

Status changed to 'Confirmed' because the bug affects multiple users. ** Changed in: python2.7 (Ubuntu) Status: New => Confirmed -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to python2.7 in Ubuntu.