Package: guix-patches;
Reported by: Arun Isaac <arunisaac <at> systemreboot.net>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2020 19:53:02 UTC
Severity: important
Done: Arun Isaac <arunisaac <at> systemreboot.net>
Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.
Message #382 received at 39258 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
From: zimoun <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com> To: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org> Cc: Arun Isaac <arunisaac <at> systemreboot.net>, 39258 <at> debbugs.gnu.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/2] DRAFT "guix search" performances Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2021 17:42:44 +0200
Hi Ludo, On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 at 17:43, Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org> wrote: > > From my understanding, the issue that 'package-relevance' accepts a 'package' > > (and then all the chain until displaying) and 'fold-avaibale-packages' does > > not return a package. Well, I do not know; especially where to put something > > similiar to 'read-package-from'. > > Yeah that’s annoying. Perhaps we need <proto-package> or > <package-metadata>. With some trickery we could have record type > inheritance or something, maybe. Dunno. > > It would be good if we could arrange so that ‘fold-available-packages’ > doesn’t allocate anything though. It does not allocate, the allocation is done by 'find-packages-by-description'. Well, I think v4/v3 [0] is the direction to follow. Therefore, I would revisit this version and try to address two of Ludo's comments [1] and the other ones in v3. BTW, I have not investigated from where the slowness comes: - allocation - garbage collection - '(module-ref (resolve-interface module) symbol)' because I have been a bit disappointed by the performance of this v6. 0: <http://issues.guix.gnu.org/39258#89> 1: <http://issues.guix.gnu.org/39258#93> > > Let compare only for cold cache and time this cache building (Guix 7db8fd6): > > > > sudo sh -c 'echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches' > > time guix build --check $(guix gc --derivers $(readlink -f ~/.config/guix/current/lib/guix/package.cache)) > > > > real 0m28,848s > > user 0m1,481s > > sys 0m0,252s > > > > sudo sh -c 'echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches' > > time guix build --check $(guix gc --derivers $(readlink -f /tmp/new/lib/guix/package.cache)) > > > > real 0m40,279s > > user 0m1,582s > > sys 0m0,232s > > > > It seems longer but compared to the time of "guix pull" completion, it seems > > acceptable. > > Both the initial timing and the target are waaay too much. :-/ Yes, but that's another story. :-) We cannot fix all in the same time, IMHO. Here the point is to speedup "guix search" and to accept to pay a little more at "guix pull" time; then we could optimize the cache generation. Considering the overall time of "guix pull", this extra time appears to me acceptable---if "guix search" is faster. :-) > On my i7 laptop I have: > > --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- > $ time ./pre-inst-env guile -c '(use-modules (gnu packages)) (generate-package-cache "/tmp/t.cache")' > > real 0m20.738s > user 0m44.413s > sys 0m0.341s > --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- > > It’s CPU-bound; we should probably start by optimizing that. > > In Guile 3.0.7 there was a change that improved this noticeably: > > https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guile.git/commit/?id=05614f792bfabbc33798863edd0bb67c744e9299 > > We should prolly look for similar optimization opportunities in the > assembler… Yes, but this kind of optimization will not provide a faster "guix search" but a faster "guix pull". --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- $ sudo sh -c 'echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches' $ time guile -c '(use-modules (gnu packages)) (generate-package-cache "/tmp/t1.cache")' real 0m15,728s user 0m23,940s sys 0m0,826s $ sudo sh -c 'echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches' $ time guile -c '(load-compiled "/tmp/t1.cache/lib/guix/package.cache")' real 0m1,026s user 0m0,258s sys 0m0,051s $ sudo sh -c 'echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches' $ time ./pre-inst-env guile -c '(use-modules (gnu packages)) (generate-package-cache "/tmp/t2.cache")' real 0m35,570s user 3m12,951s sys 0m3,807s $ sudo sh -c 'echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches' $ time guile -c '(load-compiled "/tmp/t2.cache/lib/guix/package.cache")' real 0m1,055s user 0m0,283s sys 0m0,055s --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- (And if we speak about performance, raw loading the cache takes ~1s but "guix package -A >/dev/null" takes ~8s. It is a big gap for parsing the CLI and sorting. Worse, "guix --version >/dev/null" takes ~2s on cold cache. We should probably start by reduce this overhead.) > > Let compare for some queries: > > > > sudo sh -c 'echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches' > > time guix search game | recsel -C -P name | wc -l > > 371 > > > > real 0m7,561s > > user 0m3,525s > > sys 0m0,391s > > I think you should run: > > time guix search game > /dev/null > > otherwise Bash’s built-in ‘time’ shows the wall-clock time of the whole > pipeline, and the processing time of ‘recsel’ is probably not negligible > here. First, I am confused... If the formatter (recsel) is not negligible, then it should be dropped and replaced by an internal (fast) formatter. Well, I mean that as an end-user I am interested by the time of the whole pipeline. Second, on my machine the time is somehow negligible*. ;-) On cold cache, 10 runs using the pipe or using the redirection, keeping the max and the min for each: --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- real 0m9,598s user 0m3,961s sys 0m0,415s real 0m8,744s user 0m3,772s sys 0m0,431s --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- real 0m8,755s user 0m3,869s sys 0m0,540s real 0m8,390s user 0m3,767s sys 0m0,416s --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- *negligible: better said, it does not give the bad impression. Even if it is roughly 5% of difference. Cheers, simon
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.