Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 11 Apr 2025 14:04:49 -0700
From:      Mark Millard <marklmi@yahoo.com>
To:        Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org>
Cc:        Gleb Popov <6yearold@gmail.com>, FreeBSD Current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD Mailing List <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: UPDATE: pkg 2.1.0 looks to be making official bulk builds of packages take much longer [reproducible examples notes]
Message-ID:  <8B070D1D-0524-4DA4-A5C2-EF2CF98C5E15@yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <DF941235-0BFF-4CE1-9575-4A6E30A2F87E@yahoo.com>
References:  <8E2FBAD3-EF6F-4D99-A340-21F8FD19AE0F@yahoo.com> <FA9C7841-6D61-4285-AC6D-46328CBC56D2@yahoo.com> <C7BBEC76-228F-4F9E-A5F9-86E9F53372FD@yahoo.com> <D3C2F75D-838B-47E9-B125-71104A3C16EA@yahoo.com> <CD66A7B2-422B-40FE-BB17-145032DBA46F@FreeBSD.org> <84FBBAF8-025E-4B9D-9797-51735567A8DB@yahoo.com> <B295D1CB-E47D-4359-A79A-986213E7AFCE@yahoo.com> <366E27FD-FA5B-4BF8-B6C4-6C495DB289C5@yahoo.com> <CALH631mm8cdL1A9TaumnENk9OGCm=PEfMDH6uSvjKaUDuzg8Hw@mail.gmail.com> <F82E31E6-D9C1-461A-B3C8-4DB5D491C000@yahoo.com> <7ziazrj7szuqhov3oppjbh3jyu3f2p2owntv4oxprelrdjzc6u@hkuf5szf3zwy> <DF941235-0BFF-4CE1-9575-4A6E30A2F87E@yahoo.com>

index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail

On Apr 11, 2025, at 11:39, Mark Millard <marklmi@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Apr 7, 2025, at 08:14, Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org> wrote:
> 
>> . . .
>> the problem we have is the
>> performance changes depending on what is happening in parallel on the machines.
> 
> In separate list messages I've provided multiple examples
> of the time-taking issue that do not depend on what is
> running in parallel on the machines, no parallel builds
> involved.
> 
> Part of the issue is that there are thousands of examples of
> "small build-step time" packages for which the build-depends,
> lib-depends, run-depends combination, takes notable time,
> given that the total time contribution across those thousands
> of package builds is notable overall.
> 
> As stands, mostly it is the early part of "bulk -c -a" avoids
> the issue via building packages that have no or few
> dependencies. Later "small build-step time" packages tend to
> have various dependencies, greatly changing the time scale
> for their builds. Few builds are of "large build-step
> time" packages (relative to there being 30000+ packages). That 
> has implications for there being 30000+ packages to build for
> "bulk -c -a" or other builds with large numbers of packages
> to try to build.
> 
>> which makes the performance issues invisible on local poudriere if you want to
>> test it on port A or port B,
> 
> I've provided counter examples to that that only involve the
> one builder, after the prerequisites have already been built
> (same or prior bulk run).
> 
>> if we want to reduce the performance penalty we
>> need to be able to make a reproducible case which can then be profiled, to know
>> where to optimize if needed.
> 
> I've provided examples of such . . .
> (time intervals shown are from the aarch64
> Windows Dev Kit 2023 with just the one
> builder active)
> 
> www/rt50
> build-depends: 00:00:27->00:08:46
> 
> devel/py-inline-snapshot@py311 
> build-depends: 00:00:01->00:00:55
> run-depends:   00:00:56->00:01:47
> 
> mail/mailest@nox
> build-depends: 00:00:01->00:00:28
> run-depends:   00:00:30->00:00:59
> 
> devel/dwarves
> build-depends: 00:00:05->00:02:23
> lib-depends:   00:02:23->00:02:42

net-mgmt/fastnetmon
build-depends: 00:00:03->00:00:42
lib-depends:   00:00:42->00:01:29

(See later below.)

> The timings are from the column next to
> the Building/Status/Finished column from
> using bulk -v , not from the column for
> the overall bulk run.
> 
>> I have tried to reproduce each individual case which happen in the ports tree
>> and I am not able to reproduce them, so impossible to know where to look at
>> exactly.
> 
> Try some of the examples that I've provided?
> 
> There are more examples that I could check
> and report non-parallel timings on if you
> want. I just picked to report on only a few
> initially.
> 
> An example that you might want is my
> providing more examples of lib-depends
> with non-parallel timings.

I took a quick look and quickly ran into:
(aarch64 Windows Dev Kit 2023 no-parallel-builders
timing again, after having built the prerequisites
that had not previously been built)

[00:11:37] [01] [00:00:00] Building   net-mgmt/fastnetmon | fastnetmon-1.2.8
[00:11:39] [01] [00:00:02] Status     net-mgmt/fastnetmon | fastnetmon-1.2.8: check-sanity
[00:11:39] [01] [00:00:02] Status     net-mgmt/fastnetmon | fastnetmon-1.2.8: pkg-depends
[00:11:40] [01] [00:00:03] Status     net-mgmt/fastnetmon | fastnetmon-1.2.8: fetch-depends
[00:11:40] [01] [00:00:03] Status     net-mgmt/fastnetmon | fastnetmon-1.2.8: fetch
[00:11:40] [01] [00:00:03] Status     net-mgmt/fastnetmon | fastnetmon-1.2.8: checksum
[00:11:40] [01] [00:00:03] Status     net-mgmt/fastnetmon | fastnetmon-1.2.8: extract-depends
[00:11:40] [01] [00:00:03] Status     net-mgmt/fastnetmon | fastnetmon-1.2.8: extract
[00:11:40] [01] [00:00:03] Status     net-mgmt/fastnetmon | fastnetmon-1.2.8: patch-depends
[00:11:40] [01] [00:00:03] Status     net-mgmt/fastnetmon | fastnetmon-1.2.8: patch
[00:11:40] [01] [00:00:03] Status     net-mgmt/fastnetmon | fastnetmon-1.2.8: build-depends
[00:12:19] [01] [00:00:42] Status     net-mgmt/fastnetmon | fastnetmon-1.2.8: lib-depends
[00:13:06] [01] [00:01:29] Status     net-mgmt/fastnetmon | fastnetmon-1.2.8: configure
[00:13:09] [01] [00:01:32] Status     net-mgmt/fastnetmon | fastnetmon-1.2.8: build
[00:14:20] [01] [00:02:43] Status     net-mgmt/fastnetmon | fastnetmon-1.2.8: run-depends
[00:14:20] [01] [00:02:43] Status     net-mgmt/fastnetmon | fastnetmon-1.2.8: stage
[00:14:20] [01] [00:02:43] Status     net-mgmt/fastnetmon | fastnetmon-1.2.8: package
[00:14:22] [01] [00:02:45] Finished   net-mgmt/fastnetmon | fastnetmon-1.2.8: Success

(I still have thousands of packages that have not built
in the bulk -v -a build activity. The M4 MAX is in use
for that.)

>> I know what is new and what causes the performance penalty, but not
>> which part is causing the super extra penalty on the cluster.
> 
> Various examples reproduce the timing issues
> outside the cluster and without the parallel
> builds.


===
Mark Millard
marklmi at yahoo.com



help

Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?8B070D1D-0524-4DA4-A5C2-EF2CF98C5E15>