Re: [bitbake-devel][PATCH] bitbake: add --noreply-timeout option

[Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Wed, 2023-05-10 at 09:43 +0000, Chen, Qi wrote:
> Hi Richard,
> 
> It's not the bitbake server that takes more than 1 minute to start,
> it's that the 'updateConfig' command that takes more than 1 minute.
> From what I see, other commands finish quite fast except the actual
> building one.

The updateConfig command doesn't actually build anything. All it does
is triggers a parse of the base configuration, it isn't even parsing
recipes, just the bitbake.conf and layer.conf files.

Think of updateConfig as just bringing the two ends of the connection,
client and server into sync.

I'm a bit worried that if the system is so overloaded it can't do that
in 60s, we have bigger problems.

> The server was still usable, even after the second world build
> managed to start.
> 
> I'm not using any special configuration. All default values. I do
> have extra layers added, such as meta-openembedded/*, meta-
> virtualization, meta-browser, meta-security, meta-selinux, etc.
> Anyway, the task number of a world build is about 40000+.
> 
> In fact, what I really want to do is to set the timeout to be some
> large value on our autobuilders so that we can avoid this start-up
> timeout failure. If such patch is not suitable for the official
> bitbake, I'll make it a local patch until our autobuilders are
> configured more properly. Do you have any suggestion?
> 
> That's all the information and the background.

What is BB_NUMBER_THREADS set to and how many CPU cores? Spinning media
or SSDs? What are the system load numbers when this happens?

I think that if this startup timeout is happening, there will be other
issues and you need to resolve the overloaded system problem rather
than just move the timeout problem to somewhere else.

Cheers,

Richard