On Thu, 2017-08-17 at 10:50 +0300, Markus Lehtonen wrote: > Hi, > > I quickly run some tests on a Xeon server, using glibc-locale as the recipe > to build. > 100: 154s > 10: 162s (+5%) > 1: 234s (+51%)
What I did to measure parallel versus serial is to run the corresponding selftest (signing.Signing.test_signing_packages) several times for chucks of 100, 20, 10 and 1. Here are the results (Xeon machine also) 100: - Ran 1 test in 51.857s - Ran 1 test in 52.148s - Ran 1 test in 52.048s - Ran 1 test in 52.397s 20: - Ran 1 test in 54.068s - Ran 1 test in 67.295s - Ran 1 test in 52.608s - Ran 1 test in 51.948s - Ran 1 test in 53.283s 10 - Ran 1 test in 55.178s - Ran 1 test in 56.468s - Ran 1 test in 52.735s - Ran 1 test in 53.530s - Ran 1 test in 53.064s 1: - Ran 1 test in 52.604s - Ran 1 test in 53.211s - Ran 1 test in 53.020s - Ran 1 test in 53.017s - Ran 1 test in 53.029s so at least at selftest level, there is not such an perf penalty as you observed. This is the test involved: @OETestID(1362) def test_signing_packages(self): """ Summary: Test that packages can be signed in the package feed Expected: Package should be signed with the correct key Expected: Images can be created from signed packages > > Even if signing is not parallel, the difference may be explained by the > number of rpm processes that get spawned. I would drop the factor to 10 or > use BB_NUMBER_THREADS as Andre suggested in another email. > - Markus > > > > On 16/08/2017, 19.00, "Leonardo Sandoval" > <leonardo.sandoval.gonza...@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > On Wed, 2017-08-16 at 15:28 +0300, Markus Lehtonen wrote: > > I agree. I don't see reason for dropping parallelism completely. There > is a real gain when running on beefier machines. Making it configurable would > probably be best. Or just drop it to a saner value, like 20 or 10. > > - Markus > > > > I ran some tests with 100, 20 and 1 and I saw (I can rerun and provide > times) no difference on times. gpg may be intrinsically serial so > passing 1 or N files wont make much difference in type. The only gain > when using file chunks is that one one process is launched. > > I the other hand, I tried using multiprocessing.Pool, but failed > miserably due to file looking reasons. > > > > > On 16/08/2017, 2.53, "Mark Hatle" > <openembedded-core-boun...@lists.openembedded.org on behalf of > mark.ha...@windriver.com> wrote: > > > > It would probably be better if this was configurable with a 'safe' > default. > > > > Moving from parallel to single will greatly affect the overall > performance on > > larger build machines (lots of memory and cores) that can handle > the load vs a > > typical development machine. > > > > --Mark > > > > On 8/15/17 4:40 PM, leonardo.sandoval.gonza...@linux.intel.com > wrote: > > > From: Leonardo Sandoval > <leonardo.sandoval.gonza...@linux.intel.com> > > > > > > gpg signing in file batches (which was default to 100) is a > memory expensive > > > computation, causing trouble in some host machines (even on > production AB > > > as seen on the bugzilla ID). Also, in terms of performance, there > is no real > > > gain when rpm signing is done in batches. Considering the latter > issues, perform the > > > rpm signing serially. > > > > > > Log showing errors observed recently at AB workers: > > > > > > | gpg: signing failed: Cannot allocate memory > > > | gpg: signing failed: Cannot allocate memory > > > | error: gpg exec failed (2) > > > | > /home/pokybuild/yocto-autobuilder/yocto-worker/nightly-oe-selftest/build/build/tmp/work/core2-64-poky-linux/base-passwd/3.5.29-r0/deploy-rpms/core2_64/base-passwd-dev-3.5.29-r0.core2_64.rpm: > > > > > > [YOCTO #11914] > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Leonardo Sandoval > <leonardo.sandoval.gonza...@linux.intel.com> > > > --- > > > meta/lib/oe/gpg_sign.py | 6 +++--- > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/meta/lib/oe/gpg_sign.py b/meta/lib/oe/gpg_sign.py > > > index f4d8b10e4b..5c7985a856 100644 > > > --- a/meta/lib/oe/gpg_sign.py > > > +++ b/meta/lib/oe/gpg_sign.py > > > @@ -45,9 +45,9 @@ class LocalSigner(object): > > > if fsk_password: > > > cmd += "--define '_file_signing_key_password %s' > " % fsk_password > > > > > > - # Sign in chunks of 100 packages > > > - for i in range(0, len(files), 100): > > > - status, output = oe.utils.getstatusoutput(cmd + ' > '.join(files[i:i+100])) > > > + # Sign packages > > > + for f in files: > > > + status, output = oe.utils.getstatusoutput(cmd + ' ' > + f) > > > if status: > > > raise bb.build.FuncFailed("Failed to sign RPM > packages: %s" % output) > > > > > > > > > > -- > > _______________________________________________ > > Openembedded-core mailing list > > Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org > > http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core > > > > > > > > > > > -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core