On Wed, 2017-02-15 at 19:32 +0100, Martin Jansa wrote: > Are all changes necessary for this to work already in master?
Yes. > Yesterday I've noticed that rm_work for some components which are > early in the dependency (like qtbase) are executed relatively late > (together with do_package_qa). Could do_rm_work run before do_package_qa? rm_work.bbclass doesn't know that, and therefore schedules do_rm_work after do_package_qa. If yes, then adding a list of tasks that can be ignored would be trivial. This can be a variable, so a recipe can even add their own ones, if necessary. > So I've tried very naive way to find out if the rm_work tasks are > executed sooner or not just by comparing Task IDs in build of the same > image built from scratch (without sstate) with Dizzy, Morty and > current master. Interesting, I hadn't thought of testing it like that. > If we dismiss the strange case in rm_work.tasks.master.qemux86 then it > seems to perform at least as good as old completion BB_SCHEDULER. > > > But I wanted to ask if there is something else we can do or you were > planing to do, because IIRC you shared some longer analysis of what > could be improved here and I'm not sure if you managed to implement it > all. The other ideas that I mentioned at some point didn't pan out as intended. In particular allowing do_rm_work tasks to run when the normal task limit was reached didn't have a big effect and the implementation was a hack, so I dropped that. > It feels to me that rm_work has high priority, but still it's > "blocked" by e.g. do_package_qa which gets executed late and then > immediately followed by rm_work. That should be easy to change, perhaps like this (untested): RM_WORK_TASKS_WHITELIST = "do_build do_package_qa" deps = set(bb.build.preceedtask('do_build', True, d)) whitelist = d.getVar('RM_WORK_TASKS_WHITELIST').split() deps.difference_update(whitelist) # In practice, addtask() here merely updates the dependencies. bb.build.addtask('do_rm_work', 'do_build', ' '.join(deps), d) -- Best Regards, Patrick Ohly The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak on behalf of Intel on this matter. -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core