Re: Long delays with latest bitbake (was: [PATCH 1/7] insane.bbclass: in file-rdeps do not look into RDEPENDS recursively)

[Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 7:57 AM Peter Kjellerstedt
<peter.kjellerstedt@axis.com> wrote:
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org
> > <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
> > Sent: den 14 augusti 2019 14:56
> > To: Alexander Kanavin <alex.kanavin@gmail.com>
> > Cc: Peter Kjellerstedt <peter.kjellerstedt@axis.com>; Khem Raj
> > <raj.khem@gmail.com>; OE-core <openembedded-
> > core@lists.openembedded.org>
> > Subject: Re: [OE-core] Long delays with latest bitbake (was: [PATCH
> > 1/7] insane.bbclass: in file-rdeps do not look into RDEPENDS
> > recursively)
> >
> > On Wed, 2019-08-14 at 14:08 +0200, Alexander Kanavin wrote:
> > > On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 at 13:36, <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2019-08-14 at 13:25 +0200, Alexander Kanavin wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 at 21:18, Richard Purdie <
> > > > > richard.purdie@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
> > > > other
> > > > > > changes and hence are a separate fix.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've put a patch in -next which takes the above test to 36s
> > > > which
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > close to the older bitbake.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Could be interesting to see how it looks for others and
> > > > different
> > > > > > workloads.
> > > > >
> > > > > I just tried the same test I did yesterday with
> > > > > ab56d466452148e5fce330d279d13e2495eceb1f. Unfortunately it
> > > > doesn't
> > > > > seem to improve things much: bitbake is stuck at "NOTE: Executing
> > > > > Tasks" for 15 minutes now.
> > > >
> > > > 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!
> >
> > Cool, I think I can explain it.
> >
> > The holdoff_tasks list can contain a list of nearly all the tasks at
> > some points in execution. Even though the debug messages aren't being
> > printed on the console, they are being sent over the internal IPC bus
> > between the cooker, UI and other event handlers. Obviously for small
> > task lists its not a problem, for large ones its multiple 4k chunks
> > over pipes which isn't going to be fast.
> >
> > We have done a lot of optimisation in the past but its all too easy to
> > trend on something like this and upset things :/.
> >
> > > The whole thing completed after 15m49secons (with much of the time
> > > going to the empty task spin), that's some 3 minutes slower, but
> > > certainly it's usable again.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Richard
>
> I can just confirm that removing the debug line removes almost all of
> the delays I was seeing. Here are some time statistics from my builds:
>
> 6c7c0cef: 02:50
> 7df31ff3: 06:13  (first attempt)
> a0542ed3: 06:32  (master)
> 19a88c68: 43:19* (~yesterday's master-next)
> b0a0e4a6: 06:55  (master-next)
> no debug: 03:04  (master-next + removal of "Holding off tasks" debug)
>
> * I aborted this build after about half of the 12540 tasks were done...
>
> One thing I have noticed while I was doing the timings is that I do
> not seem to be able to kill the bitbake server with bitbake -m after
> the builds have completed, but have to resort to using kill -9 most
> of the time...

me too.  My world build time came down to < 15 mins as well, Last
night it was at 45 mins and still parsing before I stopped it.

>
> //Peter
>