[Bug 2065180] Re: performance regression in dracut-install 060
Hello Viraniac, or anyone else affected, Accepted cloud-initramfs-tools into noble-proposed. The package will build now and be available at https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/cloud-initramfs-tools/0.49~24.04.1 in a few hours, and then in the -proposed repository. Please help us by testing this new package. See https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Testing/EnableProposed for documentation on how to enable and use -proposed. Your feedback will aid us getting this update out to other Ubuntu users. If this package fixes the bug for you, please add a comment to this bug, mentioning the version of the package you tested, what testing has been performed on the package and change the tag from verification-needed- noble to verification-done-noble. If it does not fix the bug for you, please add a comment stating that, and change the tag to verification- failed-noble. In either case, without details of your testing we will not be able to proceed. Further information regarding the verification process can be found at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/QATeam/PerformingSRUVerification . Thank you in advance for helping! N.B. The updated package will be released to -updates after the bug(s) fixed by this package have been verified and the package has been in -proposed for a minimum of 7 days. ** Changed in: cloud-initramfs-tools (Ubuntu Noble) Status: New => Fix Committed ** Tags removed: verification-done-noble ** Tags added: verification-needed-noble -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2065180 Title: performance regression in dracut-install 060 To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/dracut/+bug/2065180/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 2065180] Re: performance regression in dracut-install 060
This bug was fixed in the package dracut - 060+5-1ubuntu3.2 --- dracut (060+5-1ubuntu3.2) noble; urgency=medium * Cherry-pick upstream performance fixes (LP: #2065180): - perf(dracut-install): memoize find_kmod_module_from_sysfs_node - perf(dracut-install): use driver/module sysfs dirs for module name * Depend on isc-dhcp-client for upstream-dracut-network autopkgtest -- Benjamin Drung Mon, 08 Jul 2024 22:47:24 +0200 -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2065180 Title: performance regression in dracut-install 060 To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/dracut/+bug/2065180/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 2065180] Re: performance regression in dracut-install 060
This bug was fixed in the package thin-provisioning-tools - 0.9.0-2ubuntu5.1 --- thin-provisioning-tools (0.9.0-2ubuntu5.1) noble; urgency=medium * initramfs-hook: Combine calls to manual_add_modules (LP: #2065180) -- Benjamin Drung Mon, 01 Jul 2024 20:48:29 +0200 ** Changed in: dracut (Ubuntu Noble) Status: Fix Committed => Fix Released -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2065180 Title: performance regression in dracut-install 060 To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/dracut/+bug/2065180/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 2065180] Re: performance regression in dracut-install 060
This bug was fixed in the package open-iscsi - 2.1.9-3ubuntu5.1 --- open-iscsi (2.1.9-3ubuntu5.1) noble; urgency=medium * initramfs-hook: Combine calls to manual_add_modules (LP: #2065180) -- Benjamin Drung Mon, 01 Jul 2024 21:01:25 +0200 ** Changed in: open-iscsi (Ubuntu Noble) Status: Fix Committed => Fix Released ** Changed in: thin-provisioning-tools (Ubuntu Noble) Status: Fix Committed => Fix Released -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2065180 Title: performance regression in dracut-install 060 To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/dracut/+bug/2065180/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 2065180] Re: performance regression in dracut-install 060
Note that initramfs-tools is also fixing https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/initramfs-tools/+bug/1769297, which has not been verified yet. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2065180 Title: performance regression in dracut-install 060 To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/dracut/+bug/2065180/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 2065180] Re: performance regression in dracut-install 060
There are a bunch of autopkgtest failures. I retriggered some runs, after asking #is to restart neutron in the s390x cloud, as per standing workaround for RT #155441. I'll try to check back on these results still during my shift today. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2065180 Title: performance regression in dracut-install 060 To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/dracut/+bug/2065180/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 2065180] Re: performance regression in dracut-install 060
Regarding cloud-initrafms-tools (comment #51): initramfs-tools calls /usr/lib/dracut/dracut-install with the parameter -o. This ignores missing kernel modules. So combining the manual_add_modules calls in cloud-initrafms-tools are okay. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2065180 Title: performance regression in dracut-install 060 To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/dracut/+bug/2065180/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 2065180] Re: performance regression in dracut-install 060
** Tags removed: verification-needed-noble ** Tags added: verification-done-noble -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2065180 Title: performance regression in dracut-install 060 To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/dracut/+bug/2065180/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 2065180] Re: performance regression in dracut-install 060
I successfully verified the SRU on my Raspberry Pi Zero 2W: ``` bdrung@zero2w:~$ sudo cp /boot/initrd.img-6.8.0-1007-raspi /boot/initrd.img-6.8.0-1007-raspi.current-noble bdrung@zero2w:~$ sudo sh -c '3cpio -t /boot/initrd.img-6.8.0-1007-raspi.current-noble > /boot/initrd.img-6.8.0-1007-raspi.current-noble.files' bdrung@zero2w:~$ sudo apt install dracut-install=060+5-1ubuntu3.2 [...] bdrung@zero2w:~$ sudo sh -c '3cpio -t /boot/initrd.img-6.8.0-1007-raspi > /boot/initrd.img-6.8.0-1007-raspi.files' bdrung@zero2w:~$ diff -u /boot/initrd.img-6.8.0-1007-raspi.current-noble.files /boot/initrd.img-6.8.0-1007-raspi.files bdrung@zero2w:~$ sudo hyperfine --warmup 1 -r 10 "update-initramfs -u" Benchmark 1: update-initramfs -u Time (mean ± σ): 232.001 s ± 5.678 s[User: 55.456 s, System: 166.510 s] Range (min … max): 222.120 s … 239.610 s10 runs bdrung@zero2w:~$ sudo apt install -t noble-proposed cryptsetup-initramfs lvm2 open-iscsi overlayroot thin-provisioning-tools initramfs-tools [...] bdrung@zero2w:~$ sudo hyperfine --warmup 1 -r 10 "update-initramfs -u" [sudo] password for bdrung: Benchmark 1: update-initramfs -u Time (mean ± σ): 214.585 s ± 6.790 s[User: 46.486 s, System: 157.656 s] Range (min … max): 206.479 s … 225.762 s10 runs bdrung@zero2w:~$ dpkg -l | grep -E '(cryptsetup|initramfs-tools|dracut|open-iscsi|lvm2|thin-provisioning-tools|overlayroot)' ii cryptsetup 2:2.7.0-1ubuntu4.1 arm64disk encryption support - startup scripts ii cryptsetup-bin 2:2.7.0-1ubuntu4.1 arm64disk encryption support - command line tools ii cryptsetup-initramfs 2:2.7.0-1ubuntu4.1 all disk encryption support - initramfs integration ii dracut-install 060+5-1ubuntu3.2 arm64dracut is an event driven initramfs infrastructure (dracut-install) ii initramfs-tools 0.142ubuntu25.2 all generic modular initramfs generator (automation) ii initramfs-tools-bin 0.142ubuntu25.2 arm64binaries used by initramfs-tools ii initramfs-tools-core 0.142ubuntu25.2 all generic modular initramfs generator (core tools) ii libcryptsetup12:arm642:2.7.0-1ubuntu4.1 arm64disk encryption support - shared library ii liblvm2cmd2.03:arm64 2.03.16-3ubuntu3.1 arm64LVM2 command library ii lvm2 2.03.16-3ubuntu3.1 arm64Linux Logical Volume Manager ii open-iscsi 2.1.9-3ubuntu5.1 arm64iSCSI initiator tools ii overlayroot 0.48 all use an overlayfs on top of a read-only root filesystem ii thin-provisioning-tools 0.9.0-2ubuntu5.1 arm64Tools for handling thinly provisioned device-mapper meta-data ``` ** Description changed: [ Impact ] When compared to Ubuntu 23.10, creating intramfs files with update- initramfs takes 2 to 5 times more time on ARM devices. IIUC, dracut-install usage was added to initramfs-tools to speed up the process. But now its way slower. Even running update-initramfs on jammy, which doesn't use dracut-install, is way faster then the time taken on Noble. first bad commit - https://github.com/dracutdevs/dracut/commit/3de4c7313260fb600507c9b87f780390b874c870 Updating the initrd on a Raspberry Pi Zero 2W on Ubuntu 24.04 (noble) with initramfs-tools 0.142ubuntu25.1 takes over six minutes: ``` bdrung@zero2w:~$ sudo hyperfine --warmup 1 -r 10 "update-initramfs -u" Benchmark 1: update-initramfs -u Time (mean ± σ): 402.751 s ± 5.592 s[User: 166.316 s, System: 228.909 s] Range (min … max): 394.380 s … 411.445 s10 runs ``` [ Test Plan ] 1. Measure `update-initramfs -u` before the update. 2. Log the content of the initrd before the update: `lsinitramfs /boot/initrd.img` 3. update dracut-install / initramfs-tools-core 4. Measure `update-initramfs -u`. It should be faster (the performance improvements on amd64 should be very small and might be within the measurement uncertainty). 5. Check with lsinitramfs that the content of the newly generated initrd hasn't changed. [ Where problems could occur ] The code that is responsible for including the kernel modules into the initrd is touched. Negative consequences could be that some needed kernel modules will not be included any more (should be covered by the test case) or that building new initrds will fail. The initramfs-tools fix changes how manual_add_modules behaves.
[Bug 2065180] Re: performance regression in dracut-install 060
> The proposal in comment #2065180-44 is interesting. That would address user hooks. But what about hooks shipped by packages outside the Ubuntu archive? We don't support packages shipped outside the Ubuntu archive. If they break, they break. But it's not *hugegly* likely that they'll break, either, so this would only impose a small chance of regression on people using an unsupported configuration. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2065180 Title: performance regression in dracut-install 060 To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/dracut/+bug/2065180/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 2065180] Re: performance regression in dracut-install 060
The proposal in comment #2065180-44 is interesting. That would address user hooks. But what about hooks shipped by packages outside the Ubuntu archive? -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2065180 Title: performance regression in dracut-install 060 To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/dracut/+bug/2065180/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 2065180] Re: performance regression in dracut-install 060
Ok. Everything but the cloud-initrafms-tools looks OK (you're still welcome to upload something along the lines of https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/dracut/+bug/2065180/comments/44). For cloud-initramfs-tools it seems like combining the silent-failure on lack of intel-aesni with the rest might be an important behaviour difference? Failing to add the other modules to the initramfs will result in an unbootable system, right? I'm not sure under what circumstances those modules could fail to exist, but if they don't exist, we should fail to create an initramfs? -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2065180 Title: performance regression in dracut-install 060 To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/dracut/+bug/2065180/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 2065180] Re: performance regression in dracut-install 060
Hello Viraniac, or anyone else affected, Accepted dracut into noble-proposed. The package will build now and be available at https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/dracut/060+5-1ubuntu3.2 in a few hours, and then in the -proposed repository. Please help us by testing this new package. See https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Testing/EnableProposed for documentation on how to enable and use -proposed. Your feedback will aid us getting this update out to other Ubuntu users. If this package fixes the bug for you, please add a comment to this bug, mentioning the version of the package you tested, what testing has been performed on the package and change the tag from verification-needed- noble to verification-done-noble. If it does not fix the bug for you, please add a comment stating that, and change the tag to verification- failed-noble. In either case, without details of your testing we will not be able to proceed. Further information regarding the verification process can be found at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/QATeam/PerformingSRUVerification . Thank you in advance for helping! N.B. The updated package will be released to -updates after the bug(s) fixed by this package have been verified and the package has been in -proposed for a minimum of 7 days. ** Changed in: dracut (Ubuntu Noble) Status: New => Fix Committed -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2065180 Title: performance regression in dracut-install 060 To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/dracut/+bug/2065180/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 2065180] Re: performance regression in dracut-install 060
Hello Viraniac, or anyone else affected, Accepted cryptsetup into noble-proposed. The package will build now and be available at https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/cryptsetup/2:2.7.0-1ubuntu4.1 in a few hours, and then in the -proposed repository. Please help us by testing this new package. See https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Testing/EnableProposed for documentation on how to enable and use -proposed. Your feedback will aid us getting this update out to other Ubuntu users. If this package fixes the bug for you, please add a comment to this bug, mentioning the version of the package you tested, what testing has been performed on the package and change the tag from verification-needed- noble to verification-done-noble. If it does not fix the bug for you, please add a comment stating that, and change the tag to verification- failed-noble. In either case, without details of your testing we will not be able to proceed. Further information regarding the verification process can be found at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/QATeam/PerformingSRUVerification . Thank you in advance for helping! N.B. The updated package will be released to -updates after the bug(s) fixed by this package have been verified and the package has been in -proposed for a minimum of 7 days. ** Changed in: cryptsetup (Ubuntu Noble) Status: New => Fix Committed ** Changed in: lvm2 (Ubuntu Noble) Status: New => Fix Committed -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2065180 Title: performance regression in dracut-install 060 To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/dracut/+bug/2065180/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 2065180] Re: performance regression in dracut-install 060
Hello Viraniac, or anyone else affected, Accepted initramfs-tools into noble-proposed. The package will build now and be available at https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/initramfs- tools/0.142ubuntu25.2 in a few hours, and then in the -proposed repository. Please help us by testing this new package. See https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Testing/EnableProposed for documentation on how to enable and use -proposed. Your feedback will aid us getting this update out to other Ubuntu users. If this package fixes the bug for you, please add a comment to this bug, mentioning the version of the package you tested, what testing has been performed on the package and change the tag from verification-needed- noble to verification-done-noble. If it does not fix the bug for you, please add a comment stating that, and change the tag to verification- failed-noble. In either case, without details of your testing we will not be able to proceed. Further information regarding the verification process can be found at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/QATeam/PerformingSRUVerification . Thank you in advance for helping! N.B. The updated package will be released to -updates after the bug(s) fixed by this package have been verified and the package has been in -proposed for a minimum of 7 days. ** Changed in: initramfs-tools (Ubuntu Noble) Status: New => Fix Committed ** Tags removed: verification-done verification-done-noble ** Tags added: verification-needed verification-needed-noble -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2065180 Title: performance regression in dracut-install 060 To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/dracut/+bug/2065180/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 2065180] Re: performance regression in dracut-install 060
I'm not a bash expert by any means, but something like this would appear to
work?
```
function manual_add_modules() {
... normal stuff goes here ...
if [ $IN_USER_CONFIG -gt 0 ]; then
apply_add_modules
fi
}
...
in mkinitramfs:
...
IN_USER_CONFIG=0
...
apply_add_modules
run_scripts_optional /usr/share/initramfs-tools/hooks
apply_add_modules
IN_USER_CONFIG=1
run_scripts_optional "${CONFDIR}"/hooks...
...
```
(I am also reviewing the existing upload)
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2065180
Title:
performance regression in dracut-install 060
To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/dracut/+bug/2065180/+subscriptions
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 2065180] Re: performance regression in dracut-install 060
This bug was fixed in the package dracut - 102-3ubuntu4
---
dracut (102-3ubuntu4) oracular; urgency=medium
* Cherry-pick upstream fixes for systemd 256 (LP: #2069290):
- fix(test): use --add instead of --modules to create test-makeroot
- test: avoid writing to rootfs as it might be read-only
* fix(dracut-initramfs-restore.sh): correct initrd globbing
* feat(lsinitrd.sh): support configurable initrd filenames
* Default initrdname to initrd.img-${kernel}
* Cherry-pick upstream performance fixes (LP: #2065180):
- perf(dracut-install): memoize find_kmod_module_from_sysfs_node
- perf(dracut-install): use driver/module sysfs dirs for module name
* test: virtual hardware watchdog not available on s390x
-- Benjamin Drung Mon, 08 Jul 2024 20:37:51 +0200
** Changed in: dracut (Ubuntu)
Status: Fix Committed => Fix Released
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2065180
Title:
performance regression in dracut-install 060
To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/dracut/+bug/2065180/+subscriptions
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 2065180] Re: performance regression in dracut-install 060
Resetting dracut since there are more performance fixes for dracut- install ** Changed in: dracut (Ubuntu) Status: Fix Released => Fix Committed ** Changed in: dracut (Ubuntu Noble) Status: Fix Released => New -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2065180 Title: performance regression in dracut-install 060 To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/dracut/+bug/2065180/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 2065180] Re: performance regression in dracut-install 060
Another dracut-install commit that we can pick: https://github.com/dracut-ng/dracut-ng/pull/479 -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2065180 Title: performance regression in dracut-install 060 To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/dracut/+bug/2065180/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 2065180] Re: performance regression in dracut-install 060
** Changed in: initramfs-tools (Ubuntu Noble) Status: Incomplete => New ** Tags removed: foundations-todo -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2065180 Title: performance regression in dracut-install 060 To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/dracut/+bug/2065180/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 2065180] Re: performance regression in dracut-install 060
The problem is that a custom hook might rely on the behavior that all kernel modules were copied to $DESTDIR. For the SRU I am playing the safe card now as documented in the "Reduce manual_add_modules calls" section of the bug description. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2065180 Title: performance regression in dracut-install 060 To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/dracut/+bug/2065180/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 2065180] Re: performance regression in dracut-install 060
> I don't know how to differentiate between if `manual_add_modules` was called by a script in /usr/share/initramfs-tools or from outside. I *think* you could have `manual_add_modules` check the environment for something like `INITRAMFS_TOOLS_IN_USER_CONFIG=1` or something, and change behaviour based on that. You'd not set it while executing files in /usr/share/initramfs-tools, then you'd set it before executing the scripts in user config directories. > The only safer solution that I can come up with: Keep `manual_add_modules` as it is and introduce a new function (e.g. `manual_stage_modules`) that introduces the new behavior. This would also work. This approach has the advantage that it's clearer what's happening, and the disadvantages that it needs more work in other packages to get the benefit and that it still changes the behaviour in ways which theoretically might be visible to user configuration. I don't have a strong opinion on which approach should be taken (particularly: I've not *actually implemented* my solution, so it might be infeasible). -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2065180 Title: performance regression in dracut-install 060 To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/dracut/+bug/2065180/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 2065180] Re: performance regression in dracut-install 060
This bug was fixed in the package cloud-initramfs-tools - 0.49 --- cloud-initramfs-tools (0.49) oracular; urgency=medium [ Benjamin Drung ] * overlayroot: Combine calls to manual_add_modules (LP: #2065180) -- Paride Legovini Tue, 02 Jul 2024 12:38:14 +0200 ** Changed in: cloud-initramfs-tools (Ubuntu) Status: Fix Committed => Fix Released -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2065180 Title: performance regression in dracut-install 060 To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/dracut/+bug/2065180/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 2065180] Re: performance regression in dracut-install 060
The second iteration of the noble SRU: Reduce the number of dracut- install calls from 51 down to 26. This involves adjusting six packages: cryptsetup (2 -> 1), lvm2 (8 -> 1), thin-provisioning-tools (3 -> 1), open-iscsi (9 -> 1), cloud-initramfs-tools (5 -> 1), and initramfs-tools itself (8 -> 5). Benchmark result on Raspberry Pi Zero 2W: Ubuntu noble with dracut- install 060+5-1ubuntu3.1 (with linux 6.8.0-1006.6 on 2024-07-02) with those changes mentioned above: ``` bdrung@zero2w:~$ sudo hyperfine --warmup 1 -r 10 "update-initramfs -u" Benchmark 1: update-initramfs -u Time (mean ± σ): 223.113 s ± 5.167 s[User: 50.701 s, System: 159.711 s] Range (min … max): 215.693 s … 230.826 s10 runs ``` -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2065180 Title: performance regression in dracut-install 060 To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/dracut/+bug/2065180/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 2065180] Re: performance regression in dracut-install 060
** Description changed: [ Impact ] When compared to Ubuntu 23.10, creating intramfs files with update- initramfs takes 2 to 5 times more time on ARM devices. IIUC, dracut-install usage was added to initramfs-tools to speed up the process. But now its way slower. Even running update-initramfs on jammy, which doesn't use dracut-install, is way faster then the time taken on Noble. first bad commit - https://github.com/dracutdevs/dracut/commit/3de4c7313260fb600507c9b87f780390b874c870 Updating the initrd on a Raspberry Pi Zero 2W on Ubuntu 24.04 (noble) with initramfs-tools 0.142ubuntu25.1 takes over six minutes: ``` bdrung@zero2w:~$ sudo hyperfine --warmup 1 -r 10 "update-initramfs -u" Benchmark 1: update-initramfs -u Time (mean ± σ): 402.751 s ± 5.592 s[User: 166.316 s, System: 228.909 s] Range (min … max): 394.380 s … 411.445 s10 runs ``` [ Test Plan ] 1. Measure `update-initramfs -u` before the update. 2. Log the content of the initrd before the update: `lsinitramfs /boot/initrd.img` 3. update dracut-install / initramfs-tools-core 4. Measure `update-initramfs -u`. It should be faster (the performance improvements on amd64 should be very small and might be within the measurement uncertainty). 5. Check with lsinitramfs that the content of the newly generated initrd hasn't changed. [ Where problems could occur ] The code that is responsible for including the kernel modules into the initrd is touched. Negative consequences could be that some needed kernel modules will not be included any more (should be covered by the test case) or that building new initrds will fail. The initramfs-tools fix changes how manual_add_modules behaves. `manual_add_modules` does not copy kernel modules, but queues them for being copied when the newly added function `apply_add_modules` is called. I checked all instances of calls to `manual_add_modules` for possible regressions (see comment #15). Only miniramfs needs to be adjusted to also call `apply_add_modules`. But this change could break consumers of the `manual_add_modules` function that are outside of the Ubuntu archive. I googled for `apply_add_modules` but found no public outside users. [ Benchmarks ] Stock noble on a Raspberry Pi Zero 2W: ``` bdrung@zero2w:~$ sudo hyperfine -r 5 "update-initramfs -u" Benchmark 1: update-initramfs -u Time (mean ± σ): 415.664 s ± 6.015 s [User: 166.728 s, System: 232.523 s] Range (min … max): 409.139 s … 422.632 s 5 runs ``` noble with dracut-install 060+5-1ubuntu3.1 (with linux 6.8.0-1006.6 on 2024-07-01): ``` bdrung@zero2w:~$ sudo hyperfine --warmup 1 -r 10 "update-initramfs -u" Benchmark 1: update-initramfs -u - Time (mean ± σ): 248.054 s ± 5.569 s[User: 67.410 s, System: 169.412 s] - Range (min … max): 238.909 s … 257.384 s10 runs + Time (mean ± σ): 248.054 s ± 5.569 s[User: 67.410 s, System: 169.412 s] + Range (min … max): 238.909 s … 257.384 s10 runs ``` + + [ Reduce manual_add_modules calls ] + + Besides making the dracut-install calls faster, group the dracut-install + calls. Since the fix in oracular can cause regressions in custom hooks + that rely on the current behavior, the SRU takes a safe approach which + includes following packages (stating how many dracut-install calls are + used): + + * cryptsetup: 2 -> 1 + * lvm2: 8 -> 1 + * thin-provisioning-tools: 3 -> 1 + * open-iscsi: 9 -> 1 + * cloud-initramfs-tools: 5 -> 1 + + dracut-install calls on a Raspberry Pi Zero 2W: + + | area | before | noble SRU | oracular | + |--||---|--| + | auto_add_modules + apply_add_modules |8 | 5 | 5| + | calls by hooks + apply_add_modules | 42 |20 | 2| + | hidden_dep_add_modules |1 | 1 | 1| + | total| 51 |26 | 8| [ Other Info ] $ lsb_release -rd No LSB modules are available. Description: Ubuntu 24.04 LTS Release: 24.04 $ apt-cache policy dracut-install dracut-install: Installed: 060+5-1ubuntu3 Candidate: 060+5-1ubuntu3 Version table: *** 060+5-1ubuntu3 500 500 http://ports.ubuntu.com/ubuntu-ports noble/main arm64 Packages 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2065180 Title: performance regression in dracut-install 060 To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/dracut/+bug/2065180/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 2065180] Re: performance regression in dracut-install 060
Hi Benjamin, I am also not seeing much difference on VIM4. The dracut-install version 060+5-1ubuntu3.2~ppa1 is providing only 200-300 ms improvement over 060+5-1ubuntu3.1 version. On Tue, Jul 2, 2024 at 12:10 AM Benjamin Drung <2065...@bugs.launchpad.net> wrote: > There is another performance improvement upstream: > https://github.com/dracut-ng/dracut-ng/pull/408 > > I tested this change a Raspberry Pi Zero 2W, but it had no measurable > performance improvement: > > ``` > $ sudo hyperfine --warmup 1 -r 10 "update-initramfs -u" > Benchmark 1: update-initramfs -u > Time (mean ± σ): 249.595 s ± 7.243 s[User: 66.584 s, System: > 170.342 s] > Range (min … max): 240.879 s … 260.506 s10 runs > ``` > > Dave, can you test dracut 060+5-1ubuntu3.2~ppa1 from > https://launchpad.net/~bdrung/+archive/ubuntu/ppa to see if that would > improve the situation on the other Pis? Viraniac, could you test that > version on your VIM4? > > -- > You received this bug notification because you are subscribed to the bug > report. > https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2065180 > > Title: > performance regression in dracut-install 060 > > Status in Dracut: > New > Status in cryptsetup package in Ubuntu: > Fix Released > Status in dracut package in Ubuntu: > Fix Released > Status in initramfs-tools package in Ubuntu: > Fix Released > Status in lvm2 package in Ubuntu: > Fix Released > Status in miniramfs package in Ubuntu: > Fix Released > Status in thin-provisioning-tools package in Ubuntu: > Fix Released > Status in cryptsetup source package in Noble: > New > Status in dracut source package in Noble: > Fix Released > Status in initramfs-tools source package in Noble: > Incomplete > Status in lvm2 source package in Noble: > New > Status in miniramfs source package in Noble: > New > Status in thin-provisioning-tools source package in Noble: > New > > Bug description: > [ Impact ] > > When compared to Ubuntu 23.10, creating intramfs files with update- > initramfs takes 2 to 5 times more time on ARM devices. > > IIUC, dracut-install usage was added to initramfs-tools to speed up > the process. But now its way slower. Even running update-initramfs on > jammy, which doesn't use dracut-install, is way faster then the time > taken on Noble. > > first bad commit - > > https://github.com/dracutdevs/dracut/commit/3de4c7313260fb600507c9b87f780390b874c870 > > Updating the initrd on a Raspberry Pi Zero 2W on Ubuntu 24.04 (noble) > with initramfs-tools 0.142ubuntu25.1 takes over six minutes: > > ``` > bdrung@zero2w:~$ sudo hyperfine --warmup 1 -r 10 "update-initramfs -u" > Benchmark 1: update-initramfs -u > Time (mean ± σ): 402.751 s ± 5.592 s[User: 166.316 s, System: > 228.909 s] > Range (min … max): 394.380 s … 411.445 s10 runs > ``` > > [ Test Plan ] > > 1. Measure `update-initramfs -u` before the update. > 2. Log the content of the initrd before the update: `lsinitramfs > /boot/initrd.img` > 3. update dracut-install / initramfs-tools-core > 4. Measure `update-initramfs -u`. It should be faster (the performance > improvements on amd64 should be very small and might be within the > measurement uncertainty). > 5. Check with lsinitramfs that the content of the newly generated initrd > hasn't changed. > > [ Where problems could occur ] > > The code that is responsible for including the kernel modules into the > initrd is touched. Negative consequences could be that some needed > kernel modules will not be included any more (should be covered by the > test case) or that building new initrds will fail. > > The initramfs-tools fix changes how manual_add_modules behaves. > `manual_add_modules` does not copy kernel modules, but queues them for > being copied when the newly added function `apply_add_modules` is > called. > > I checked all instances of calls to `manual_add_modules` for possible > regressions (see comment #15). Only miniramfs needs to be adjusted to > also call `apply_add_modules`. But this change could break consumers > of the `manual_add_modules` function that are outside of the Ubuntu > archive. I googled for `apply_add_modules` but found no public outside > users. > > [ Benchmarks ] > > Stock noble on a Raspberry Pi Zero 2W: > > ``` > bdrung@zero2w:~$ sudo hyperfine -r 5 "update-initramfs -u" > Benchmark 1: update-initramfs -u > Time (mean ± σ): 415.664 s ± 6.015 s [User: 166.728 s, System: 232.523 > s] > Range (min … max): 409.139 s … 422.632 s 5 runs > ``` > > noble with dracut-install 060+5-1ubuntu3.1 (with linux 6.8.0-1006.6 on > 2024-07-01): > > ``` > bdrung@zero2w:~$ sudo hyperfine --warmup 1 -r 10 "update-initramfs -u" > Benchmark 1: update-initramfs -u > Time (mean ± σ): 248.054 s ± 5.569 s[User: 67.410 s, System: > 169.412 s] > Range (min … max): 238.909 s … 257.384 s10 runs > ``` > > [ Other Info ] > > $ lsb_release -rd > No LSB
[Bug 2065180] Re: performance regression in dracut-install 060
** Merge proposal unlinked: https://code.launchpad.net/~bdrung/ubuntu/+source/initramfs-tools/+git/initramfs-tools/+merge/468583 -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2065180 Title: performance regression in dracut-install 060 To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/dracut/+bug/2065180/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 2065180] Re: performance regression in dracut-install 060
** Merge proposal linked: https://code.launchpad.net/~bdrung/ubuntu/+source/initramfs-tools/+git/initramfs-tools/+merge/468583 -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2065180 Title: performance regression in dracut-install 060 To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/dracut/+bug/2065180/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 2065180] Re: performance regression in dracut-install 060
** Changed in: cloud-initramfs-tools (Ubuntu) Status: New => Fix Committed -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2065180 Title: performance regression in dracut-install 060 To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/dracut/+bug/2065180/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 2065180] Re: performance regression in dracut-install 060
** Also affects: cloud-initramfs-tools (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided Status: New -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2065180 Title: performance regression in dracut-install 060 To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/dracut/+bug/2065180/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 2065180] Re: performance regression in dracut-install 060
** Merge proposal linked: https://code.launchpad.net/~bdrung/cloud-initramfs-tools/+git/cloud-initramfs-tools/+merge/468579 -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2065180 Title: performance regression in dracut-install 060 To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/dracut/+bug/2065180/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 2065180] Re: performance regression in dracut-install 060
** Also affects: open-iscsi (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided Status: New ** Changed in: open-iscsi (Ubuntu) Status: New => Invalid -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2065180 Title: performance regression in dracut-install 060 To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/dracut/+bug/2065180/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 2065180] Re: performance regression in dracut-install 060
There is another performance improvement upstream: https://github.com/dracut-ng/dracut-ng/pull/408 I tested this change a Raspberry Pi Zero 2W, but it had no measurable performance improvement: ``` $ sudo hyperfine --warmup 1 -r 10 "update-initramfs -u" Benchmark 1: update-initramfs -u Time (mean ± σ): 249.595 s ± 7.243 s[User: 66.584 s, System: 170.342 s] Range (min … max): 240.879 s … 260.506 s10 runs ``` Dave, can you test dracut 060+5-1ubuntu3.2~ppa1 from https://launchpad.net/~bdrung/+archive/ubuntu/ppa to see if that would improve the situation on the other Pis? Viraniac, could you test that version on your VIM4? -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2065180 Title: performance regression in dracut-install 060 To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/dracut/+bug/2065180/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 2065180] Re: performance regression in dracut-install 060
There are 51 dracut-install calls on my Raspberry Pi Zero 2W on Ubuntu 24.04: ``` dracut-install -m -P /hid-(a4tech|cypress|dr|elecom|gyration|icade|kensington|kye|lcpower|magicmouse|ntrig|petalynx|picolcd|pl|ps3remote|quanta|roccat-ko.*|roccat-pyra|saitek|sensor-hub|sony|speedlink|tivo|twinhan|uclogic|wacom|waltop|wiimote|zydacron|.*ff)\.ko =drivers/hid dracut-install -m =drivers/usb/host -P /(hwa-hc|sl811_cs|sl811-hcd|u132-hcd|whci-hcd)\.ko dracut-install -m -P /((cdc_mbim|ipheth|qmi_wwan|sierra_net|veth|xen-netback)\.ko|(isdn|net/ethernet|net/phy|net/team|uwb|wan|wireless)/) -s eth_type_trans|register_virtio_device|usbnet_open =drivers/net dracut-install -m -s ahci_platform_get_resources|ata_scsi_ioctl|scsi_add_host|blk_cleanup_queue|register_mtd_blktrans|scsi_esp_register|register_virtio_device|usb_stor_disconnect|mmc_add_host|sdhci_add_host|scsi_add_host_with_dma|blk_mq_alloc_disk|blk_mq_alloc_request|blk_mq_destroy_queue|blk_cleanup_disk|dw_mc_probe|dw_mci_pltfm_register|nvme_init_ctrl|iscsi_register_transport =drivers/scsi =drivers/ufs dracut-install -m -s ahci_platform_get_resources|ata_scsi_ioctl|scsi_add_host|blk_cleanup_queue|register_mtd_blktrans|scsi_esp_register|register_virtio_device|usb_stor_disconnect|mmc_add_host|sdhci_add_host|scsi_add_host_with_dma|blk_mq_alloc_disk|blk_mq_alloc_request|blk_mq_destroy_queue|blk_cleanup_disk|dw_mc_probe|dw_mci_pltfm_register|nvme_init_ctrl =drivers/block =drivers/nvme =drivers/dax vmd dracut-install -m -s nvdimm_bus_register =drivers/nvdimm =drivers/acpi dracut-install -m -s ahci_platform_get_resources|ata_scsi_ioctl|scsi_add_host|blk_cleanup_queue|register_mtd_blktrans|scsi_esp_register|register_virtio_device|usb_stor_disconnect|mmc_add_host|sdhci_add_host|scsi_add_host_with_dma|blk_mq_alloc_disk|blk_mq_alloc_request|blk_mq_destroy_queue|blk_cleanup_disk|dw_mc_probe|dw_mci_pltfm_register|nvme_init_ctrl =drivers/ata dracut-install -m btrfs ext2 ext3 ext4 f2fs isofs jfs reiserfs squashfs udf xfs nfs nfsv2 nfsv3 nfsv4 af_packet atkbd i8042 psmouse virtio_pci virtio_mmio vfat nls_cp437 nls_iso8859-1 ehci-hcd ehci-pci ehci-platform ohci-hcd ohci-pci uhci-hcd usbhid xhci-hcd xhci-pci xhci-plat-hcd =drivers/usb/typec =drivers/usb/c67x00 =drivers/usb/renesas_usbhs extcon-usb-gpio extcon-usbc-cros-ec =drivers/input/keyboard cros_ec_spi intel_lpss_pci spi_pxa2xx_platform surface_aggregator_registry =drivers/tty/serial =drivers/bus =drivers/i2c/muxes =drivers/pci/controller =drivers/pinctrl =drivers/clk =drivers/i2c/busses =drivers/gpio =drivers/mfd =drivers/nvmem =drivers/phy =drivers/power =drivers/regulator =drivers/reset =drivers/spi =drivers/spmi =drivers/soc =drivers/usb/chipidea =drivers/usb/dwc2 =drivers/usb/dwc3 =drivers/usb/isp1760 =drivers/usb/musb =drivers/usb/phy =drivers/rtc axp20x_usb_power =drivers/char/hw_random =drivers/net/ethernet =drivers/net/mdio =drivers/net/phy 8021q ipvlan =drivers/ide be2iscsi bnx2i cxgb3i cxgb4i qedi qla4xxx scsi_dh_alua scsi_dh_emc scsi_dh_rdac mptfc mptsas mptscsih mptspi zfcp scsi_transport_srp dax_pmem nd_pmem dasd_diag_mod dasd_eckd_mod dasd_fba_mod firewire-ohci firewire-sbp2 =drivers/mmc =drivers/usb/storage rockchipdrm pwm-cros-ec pwm_bl pwm-rockchip panel-simple analogix-anx6345 pwm-sun4i sun4i-drm sun8i-mixer panel-edp pwm_imx27 nwl-dsi ti-sn65dsi86 imx-dcss mux-mmio mxsfb imx8mq-interconnect hv_vmbus hv_utils hv_netvsc hv_mouse hv_storvsc hyperv-keyboard nx-compress nx-compress-crypto nx-compress-platform nx-compress-pseries nx-compress-powernv 842-decompress dracut-install -m crc32c vmd mlx5_ib mlx4_ib crc32c crc32 dracut-install -m dm_mod dracut-install -m dm_crypt dracut-install -m sm3-ce ghash-ce aes-ce-ccm sm4-ce-cipher aes-neon-blk sm4-ce aes-ce-cipher sha2-ce aes-arm64 chacha-neon aes-ce-blk sha256-arm64 sha512-ce aes-neon-bs sha512-arm64 sha3-ce poly1305-neon sha1-ce sm4-neon sm3-neon polyval-ce crct10dif-ce nhpoly1305-neon sm4-ce-gcm sm4-ce-ccm dracut-install -m blowfish_generic cts algif_hash algif_aead chacha_generic cmac chacha20poly1305 polyval-generic xcbc ansi_cprng blowfish_common ccm 842 xts ecdh_generic ecc gcm hctr2 lrw pkcs8_key_parser pkcs7_test_key xor des_generic authenc sm4_generic twofish_common fcrypt sm4 ecrdsa_generic pcbc tcrypt cast5_generic aria_generic af_alg lz4hc adiantum zstd poly1305_generic crypto_engine michael_mic crypto_null xctr algif_skcipher sm3_generic cast6_generic cast_common md4 curve25519-generic cryptd camellia_generic seqiv keywrap xxhash_generic streebog_generic aegis128 aes_ti authencesn nhpoly1305 serpent_generic async_tx async_xor async_raid6_recov async_pq async_memcpy geniv essiv crypto_user algif_rng echainiv rmd160 ghash-generic lz4 crc32_generic pcrypt twofish_generic sm2_generic vmac ecdsa_generic blake2b_generic sm3 wp512 dracut-install -m -s drm_privacy_screen_register =drivers/platform/x86 dracut-install -m efifb fbcon simplefb vesafb vga16fb =drivers/gpu/drm/tiny vboxvideo virtio-gpu dracut-install
[Bug 2065180] Re: performance regression in dracut-install 060
** Description changed: [ Impact ] When compared to Ubuntu 23.10, creating intramfs files with update- initramfs takes 2 to 5 times more time on ARM devices. IIUC, dracut-install usage was added to initramfs-tools to speed up the process. But now its way slower. Even running update-initramfs on jammy, which doesn't use dracut-install, is way faster then the time taken on Noble. first bad commit - https://github.com/dracutdevs/dracut/commit/3de4c7313260fb600507c9b87f780390b874c870 Updating the initrd on a Raspberry Pi Zero 2W on Ubuntu 24.04 (noble) with initramfs-tools 0.142ubuntu25.1 takes over six minutes: ``` bdrung@zero2w:~$ sudo hyperfine --warmup 1 -r 10 "update-initramfs -u" Benchmark 1: update-initramfs -u Time (mean ± σ): 402.751 s ± 5.592 s[User: 166.316 s, System: 228.909 s] Range (min … max): 394.380 s … 411.445 s10 runs ``` [ Test Plan ] 1. Measure `update-initramfs -u` before the update. 2. Log the content of the initrd before the update: `lsinitramfs /boot/initrd.img` 3. update dracut-install / initramfs-tools-core 4. Measure `update-initramfs -u`. It should be faster (the performance improvements on amd64 should be very small and might be within the measurement uncertainty). 5. Check with lsinitramfs that the content of the newly generated initrd hasn't changed. [ Where problems could occur ] The code that is responsible for including the kernel modules into the initrd is touched. Negative consequences could be that some needed kernel modules will not be included any more (should be covered by the test case) or that building new initrds will fail. The initramfs-tools fix changes how manual_add_modules behaves. `manual_add_modules` does not copy kernel modules, but queues them for being copied when the newly added function `apply_add_modules` is called. I checked all instances of calls to `manual_add_modules` for possible regressions (see comment #15). Only miniramfs needs to be adjusted to also call `apply_add_modules`. But this change could break consumers of the `manual_add_modules` function that are outside of the Ubuntu archive. I googled for `apply_add_modules` but found no public outside users. [ Benchmarks ] Stock noble on a Raspberry Pi Zero 2W: ``` bdrung@zero2w:~$ sudo hyperfine -r 5 "update-initramfs -u" Benchmark 1: update-initramfs -u - Time (mean ± σ): 415.664 s ± 6.015 s [User: 166.728 s, System: 232.523 s] - Range (min … max): 409.139 s … 422.632 s 5 runs + Time (mean ± σ): 415.664 s ± 6.015 s [User: 166.728 s, System: 232.523 s] + Range (min … max): 409.139 s … 422.632 s 5 runs + ``` + + noble with dracut-install 060+5-1ubuntu3.1 (with linux 6.8.0-1006.6 on + 2024-07-01): + + ``` + bdrung@zero2w:~$ sudo hyperfine --warmup 1 -r 10 "update-initramfs -u" + Benchmark 1: update-initramfs -u + Time (mean ± σ): 248.054 s ± 5.569 s[User: 67.410 s, System: 169.412 s] + Range (min … max): 238.909 s … 257.384 s10 runs ``` [ Other Info ] $ lsb_release -rd No LSB modules are available. Description: Ubuntu 24.04 LTS Release: 24.04 $ apt-cache policy dracut-install dracut-install: Installed: 060+5-1ubuntu3 Candidate: 060+5-1ubuntu3 Version table: *** 060+5-1ubuntu3 500 500 http://ports.ubuntu.com/ubuntu-ports noble/main arm64 Packages 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2065180 Title: performance regression in dracut-install 060 To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/dracut/+bug/2065180/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 2065180] Re: performance regression in dracut-install 060
** Description changed: [ Impact ] When compared to Ubuntu 23.10, creating intramfs files with update- initramfs takes 2 to 5 times more time on ARM devices. IIUC, dracut-install usage was added to initramfs-tools to speed up the process. But now its way slower. Even running update-initramfs on jammy, which doesn't use dracut-install, is way faster then the time taken on Noble. first bad commit - https://github.com/dracutdevs/dracut/commit/3de4c7313260fb600507c9b87f780390b874c870 Updating the initrd on a Raspberry Pi Zero 2W on Ubuntu 24.04 (noble) with initramfs-tools 0.142ubuntu25.1 takes over six minutes: ``` bdrung@zero2w:~$ sudo hyperfine --warmup 1 -r 10 "update-initramfs -u" Benchmark 1: update-initramfs -u - Time (mean ± σ): 402.751 s ± 5.592 s[User: 166.316 s, System: 228.909 s] - Range (min … max): 394.380 s … 411.445 s10 runs + Time (mean ± σ): 402.751 s ± 5.592 s[User: 166.316 s, System: 228.909 s] + Range (min … max): 394.380 s … 411.445 s10 runs ``` [ Test Plan ] 1. Measure `update-initramfs -u` before the update. 2. Log the content of the initrd before the update: `lsinitramfs /boot/initrd.img` 3. update dracut-install / initramfs-tools-core 4. Measure `update-initramfs -u`. It should be faster (the performance improvements on amd64 should be very small and might be within the measurement uncertainty). 5. Check with lsinitramfs that the content of the newly generated initrd hasn't changed. [ Where problems could occur ] The code that is responsible for including the kernel modules into the initrd is touched. Negative consequences could be that some needed kernel modules will not be included any more (should be covered by the test case) or that building new initrds will fail. The initramfs-tools fix changes how manual_add_modules behaves. `manual_add_modules` does not copy kernel modules, but queues them for being copied when the newly added function `apply_add_modules` is called. I checked all instances of calls to `manual_add_modules` for possible regressions (see comment #15). Only miniramfs needs to be adjusted to also call `apply_add_modules`. But this change could break consumers of the `manual_add_modules` function that are outside of the Ubuntu archive. I googled for `apply_add_modules` but found no public outside users. + [ Benchmarks ] + + Stock noble on a Raspberry Pi Zero 2W: + + ``` + bdrung@zero2w:~$ sudo hyperfine -r 5 "update-initramfs -u" + Benchmark 1: update-initramfs -u + Time (mean ± σ): 415.664 s ± 6.015 s [User: 166.728 s, System: 232.523 s] + Range (min … max): 409.139 s … 422.632 s 5 runs + ``` + [ Other Info ] $ lsb_release -rd No LSB modules are available. Description: Ubuntu 24.04 LTS Release: 24.04 $ apt-cache policy dracut-install dracut-install: Installed: 060+5-1ubuntu3 Candidate: 060+5-1ubuntu3 Version table: *** 060+5-1ubuntu3 500 500 http://ports.ubuntu.com/ubuntu-ports noble/main arm64 Packages 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2065180 Title: performance regression in dracut-install 060 To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/dracut/+bug/2065180/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 2065180] Re: performance regression in dracut-install 060
** Tags removed: fountations-todo ** Tags added: foundations-todo -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2065180 Title: performance regression in dracut-install 060 To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/dracut/+bug/2065180/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 2065180] Re: performance regression in dracut-install 060
** Tags added: fountations-todo ** Changed in: initramfs-tools (Ubuntu Noble) Assignee: (unassigned) => Benjamin Drung (bdrung) -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2065180 Title: performance regression in dracut-install 060 To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/dracut/+bug/2065180/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 2065180] Re: performance regression in dracut-install 060
This bug was fixed in the package dracut - 060+5-1ubuntu3.1 --- dracut (060+5-1ubuntu3.1) noble; urgency=medium * perf(dracut-install): preload kmod resources for quicker module lookup (LP: #2065180) -- Benjamin Drung Tue, 04 Jun 2024 17:21:56 +0200 ** Changed in: dracut (Ubuntu Noble) Status: Fix Committed => Fix Released -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2065180 Title: performance regression in dracut-install 060 To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/dracut/+bug/2065180/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 2065180] Re: performance regression in dracut-install 060
I don't know how to differentiate between if `manual_add_modules` was called by a script in /usr/share/initramfs-tools or from outside. The only safer solution that I can come up with: Keep `manual_add_modules` as it is and introduce a new function (e.g. `manual_stage_modules`) that introduces the new behavior. The consumers in initramfs-tools will switch to the new function. Then the worst offenders (that call `manual_add_modules` many times) need a SRU to change from `manual_add_modules` to `manual_stage_modules`. initramfs- tools in oracular would get a `manual_stage_modules` function as well for easier upgrades. Then there will be only a slight risk left: Custom scripts that rely on other hooks (that switched from `manual_add_modules` to `manual_stage_modules`) to have the kernel modules copies to $DESTDIR. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2065180 Title: performance regression in dracut-install 060 To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/dracut/+bug/2065180/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 2065180] Re: performance regression in dracut-install 060
Ooooh, right. The hook might want to call something like `depmod` against the modules. So, that's a reasonable thing for a user-configured hook to do, which means we can't break it in an SRU. It *would* still be nice to get the significant speedup you've got here, though. Could this change to `manual_add_modules` *only* apply to hooks installed by packages (ie: in /usr/share/initramfs-tools)? Those we *can* fix. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2065180 Title: performance regression in dracut-install 060 To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/dracut/+bug/2065180/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 2065180] Re: performance regression in dracut-install 060
`manual_add_modules` is exposed to user-configuration. We run
`apply_add_modules` after the hooks has been run (CONFDIR is the user
configuration directory):
```
run_scripts_optional "${CONFDIR}"/hooks
# cache boot run order
for b in $(cd "${DESTDIR}/scripts" && find . -mindepth 1 -type d); do
cache_run_scripts "${DESTDIR}" "/scripts/${b#./}"
done
apply_add_modules
```
The possible break appears when the user calls `manual_add_modules` and
expects the modules to be present in $DESTDIR afterwards, but the
modules will only be copied after apply_add_modules is called.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2065180
Title:
performance regression in dracut-install 060
To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/dracut/+bug/2065180/+subscriptions
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 2065180] Re: performance regression in dracut-install 060
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't `manual_add_modules` exposed to user- configuration? User configuration in /etc/initramfs-tools/hooks is expected to include /usr/share/initramfs-tools/hook-functions, and so making this API break has the possibility of causing currently working user configurations to fail, resulting in unbootable systems? I don't think you can change the behaviour of `manual_add_modules` this way in an SRU. Alternatively, could you change it so that `apply_add_modules` is run exactly once, after all the hooks have been run? ** Changed in: initramfs-tools (Ubuntu Noble) Status: New => Incomplete -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2065180 Title: performance regression in dracut-install 060 To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/dracut/+bug/2065180/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 2065180] Re: performance regression in dracut-install 060
Thanks. So marking it as verification-done-noble for dracut. ** Tags removed: verification-needed verification-needed-noble ** Tags added: verification-done verification-done-noble -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2065180 Title: performance regression in dracut-install 060 To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/dracut/+bug/2065180/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 2065180] Re: performance regression in dracut-install 060
Sorry forgot to mention about the contents before. I did checked the contents. They were exactly the same. On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 6:01 PM Benjamin Drung <2065...@bugs.launchpad.net> wrote: > Thanks for the test on the VIM4. Can you also verify that the content of > the initrd hasn't change (see "Test Plan" in the bug description)? > > Further speedup will be achieved by the initramfs-tools change (that is > waiting in the SRU upload queue). > > -- > You received this bug notification because you are subscribed to the bug > report. > https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2065180 > > Title: > performance regression in dracut-install 060 > > Status in Dracut: > New > Status in cryptsetup package in Ubuntu: > Fix Released > Status in dracut package in Ubuntu: > Fix Released > Status in initramfs-tools package in Ubuntu: > Fix Released > Status in lvm2 package in Ubuntu: > Fix Released > Status in miniramfs package in Ubuntu: > Fix Released > Status in thin-provisioning-tools package in Ubuntu: > Fix Released > Status in cryptsetup source package in Noble: > New > Status in dracut source package in Noble: > Fix Committed > Status in initramfs-tools source package in Noble: > New > Status in lvm2 source package in Noble: > New > Status in miniramfs source package in Noble: > New > Status in thin-provisioning-tools source package in Noble: > New > > Bug description: > [ Impact ] > > When compared to Ubuntu 23.10, creating intramfs files with update- > initramfs takes 2 to 5 times more time on ARM devices. > > IIUC, dracut-install usage was added to initramfs-tools to speed up > the process. But now its way slower. Even running update-initramfs on > jammy, which doesn't use dracut-install, is way faster then the time > taken on Noble. > > first bad commit - > > https://github.com/dracutdevs/dracut/commit/3de4c7313260fb600507c9b87f780390b874c870 > > Updating the initrd on a Raspberry Pi Zero 2W on Ubuntu 24.04 (noble) > with initramfs-tools 0.142ubuntu25.1 takes over six minutes: > > ``` > bdrung@zero2w:~$ sudo hyperfine --warmup 1 -r 10 "update-initramfs -u" > Benchmark 1: update-initramfs -u > Time (mean ± σ): 402.751 s ± 5.592 s[User: 166.316 s, System: > 228.909 s] > Range (min … max): 394.380 s … 411.445 s10 runs > ``` > > [ Test Plan ] > > 1. Measure `update-initramfs -u` before the update. > 2. Log the content of the initrd before the update: `lsinitramfs > /boot/initrd.img` > 3. update dracut-install / initramfs-tools-core > 4. Measure `update-initramfs -u`. It should be faster (the performance > improvements on amd64 should be very small and might be within the > measurement uncertainty). > 5. Check with lsinitramfs that the content of the newly generated initrd > hasn't changed. > > [ Where problems could occur ] > > The code that is responsible for including the kernel modules into the > initrd is touched. Negative consequences could be that some needed > kernel modules will not be included any more (should be covered by the > test case) or that building new initrds will fail. > > The initramfs-tools fix changes how manual_add_modules behaves. > `manual_add_modules` does not copy kernel modules, but queues them for > being copied when the newly added function `apply_add_modules` is > called. > > I checked all instances of calls to `manual_add_modules` for possible > regressions (see comment #15). Only miniramfs needs to be adjusted to > also call `apply_add_modules`. But this change could break consumers > of the `manual_add_modules` function that are outside of the Ubuntu > archive. I googled for `apply_add_modules` but found no public outside > users. > > [ Other Info ] > > $ lsb_release -rd > No LSB modules are available. > Description: Ubuntu 24.04 LTS > Release: 24.04 > > $ apt-cache policy dracut-install > dracut-install: > Installed: 060+5-1ubuntu3 > Candidate: 060+5-1ubuntu3 > Version table: >*** 060+5-1ubuntu3 500 > 500 http://ports.ubuntu.com/ubuntu-ports noble/main arm64 > Packages > 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status > > To manage notifications about this bug go to: > https://bugs.launchpad.net/dracut/+bug/2065180/+subscriptions > > -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2065180 Title: performance regression in dracut-install 060 To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/dracut/+bug/2065180/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 2065180] Re: performance regression in dracut-install 060
Thanks for the test on the VIM4. Can you also verify that the content of the initrd hasn't change (see "Test Plan" in the bug description)? Further speedup will be achieved by the initramfs-tools change (that is waiting in the SRU upload queue). -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2065180 Title: performance regression in dracut-install 060 To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/dracut/+bug/2065180/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 2065180] Re: performance regression in dracut-install 060
Tried on VIM4. It took 30s to build the initrd which is definitely way better than 1m30s it was taking before. It still doesn't beat the 20s time that is achievable just by reverting 131822e and 3de4c73 commits. On Fri, Jun 14, 2024 at 8:01 PM Timo Aaltonen <2065...@bugs.launchpad.net> wrote: > Hello Viraniac, or anyone else affected, > > Accepted dracut into noble-proposed. The package will build now and be > available at > https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/dracut/060+5-1ubuntu3.1 in a few > hours, and then in the -proposed repository. > > Please help us by testing this new package. See > https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Testing/EnableProposed for documentation on how > to enable and use -proposed. Your feedback will aid us getting this > update out to other Ubuntu users. > > If this package fixes the bug for you, please add a comment to this bug, > mentioning the version of the package you tested, what testing has been > performed on the package and change the tag from verification-needed- > noble to verification-done-noble. If it does not fix the bug for you, > please add a comment stating that, and change the tag to verification- > failed-noble. In either case, without details of your testing we will > not be able to proceed. > > Further information regarding the verification process can be found at > https://wiki.ubuntu.com/QATeam/PerformingSRUVerification . Thank you in > advance for helping! > > N.B. The updated package will be released to -updates after the bug(s) > fixed by this package have been verified and the package has been in > -proposed for a minimum of 7 days. > > ** Changed in: dracut (Ubuntu Noble) >Status: New => Fix Committed > > ** Tags added: verification-needed verification-needed-noble > > -- > You received this bug notification because you are subscribed to the bug > report. > https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2065180 > > Title: > performance regression in dracut-install 060 > > Status in Dracut: > New > Status in cryptsetup package in Ubuntu: > Fix Released > Status in dracut package in Ubuntu: > Fix Released > Status in initramfs-tools package in Ubuntu: > Fix Released > Status in lvm2 package in Ubuntu: > Fix Released > Status in miniramfs package in Ubuntu: > Fix Released > Status in thin-provisioning-tools package in Ubuntu: > Fix Released > Status in cryptsetup source package in Noble: > New > Status in dracut source package in Noble: > Fix Committed > Status in initramfs-tools source package in Noble: > New > Status in lvm2 source package in Noble: > New > Status in miniramfs source package in Noble: > New > Status in thin-provisioning-tools source package in Noble: > New > > Bug description: > [ Impact ] > > When compared to Ubuntu 23.10, creating intramfs files with update- > initramfs takes 2 to 5 times more time on ARM devices. > > IIUC, dracut-install usage was added to initramfs-tools to speed up > the process. But now its way slower. Even running update-initramfs on > jammy, which doesn't use dracut-install, is way faster then the time > taken on Noble. > > first bad commit - > > https://github.com/dracutdevs/dracut/commit/3de4c7313260fb600507c9b87f780390b874c870 > > Updating the initrd on a Raspberry Pi Zero 2W on Ubuntu 24.04 (noble) > with initramfs-tools 0.142ubuntu25.1 takes over six minutes: > > ``` > bdrung@zero2w:~$ sudo hyperfine --warmup 1 -r 10 "update-initramfs -u" > Benchmark 1: update-initramfs -u > Time (mean ± σ): 402.751 s ± 5.592 s[User: 166.316 s, System: > 228.909 s] > Range (min … max): 394.380 s … 411.445 s10 runs > ``` > > [ Test Plan ] > > 1. Measure `update-initramfs -u` before the update. > 2. Log the content of the initrd before the update: `lsinitramfs > /boot/initrd.img` > 3. update dracut-install / initramfs-tools-core > 4. Measure `update-initramfs -u`. It should be faster (the performance > improvements on amd64 should be very small and might be within the > measurement uncertainty). > 5. Check with lsinitramfs that the content of the newly generated initrd > hasn't changed. > > [ Where problems could occur ] > > The code that is responsible for including the kernel modules into the > initrd is touched. Negative consequences could be that some needed > kernel modules will not be included any more (should be covered by the > test case) or that building new initrds will fail. > > The initramfs-tools fix changes how manual_add_modules behaves. > `manual_add_modules` does not copy kernel modules, but queues them for > being copied when the newly added function `apply_add_modules` is > called. > > I checked all instances of calls to `manual_add_modules` for possible > regressions (see comment #15). Only miniramfs needs to be adjusted to > also call `apply_add_modules`. But this change could break consumers > of the `manual_add_modules` function that are outside of the Ubuntu > archive. I googled for
[Bug 2065180] Re: performance regression in dracut-install 060
Hello Viraniac, or anyone else affected, Accepted dracut into noble-proposed. The package will build now and be available at https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/dracut/060+5-1ubuntu3.1 in a few hours, and then in the -proposed repository. Please help us by testing this new package. See https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Testing/EnableProposed for documentation on how to enable and use -proposed. Your feedback will aid us getting this update out to other Ubuntu users. If this package fixes the bug for you, please add a comment to this bug, mentioning the version of the package you tested, what testing has been performed on the package and change the tag from verification-needed- noble to verification-done-noble. If it does not fix the bug for you, please add a comment stating that, and change the tag to verification- failed-noble. In either case, without details of your testing we will not be able to proceed. Further information regarding the verification process can be found at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/QATeam/PerformingSRUVerification . Thank you in advance for helping! N.B. The updated package will be released to -updates after the bug(s) fixed by this package have been verified and the package has been in -proposed for a minimum of 7 days. ** Changed in: dracut (Ubuntu Noble) Status: New => Fix Committed ** Tags added: verification-needed verification-needed-noble -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2065180 Title: performance regression in dracut-install 060 To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/dracut/+bug/2065180/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 2065180] Re: performance regression in dracut-install 060
As requested, results from running stock noble on the same Pi 4B with the same SD card as before. First, stock noble (with all available upgrades): $ sudo hyperfine --warmup 1 -r 5 "update-initramfs -u" Benchmark 1: update-initramfs -u Time (mean ± σ): 193.558 s ± 2.334 s[User: 77.577 s, System: 118.253 s] Range (min … max): 190.964 s … 196.165 s5 runs Second, noble after update from the specified PPA (ppa:bdrung/ppa): $ sudo hyperfine --warmup 1 -r 5 "update-initramfs -u" Benchmark 1: update-initramfs -u Time (mean ± σ): 81.116 s ± 2.468 s[User: 16.125 s, System: 67.027 s] Range (min … max): 78.409 s … 84.017 s5 runs So a pretty substantial improvement :) -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2065180 Title: performance regression in dracut-install 060 To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/dracut/+bug/2065180/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 2065180] Re: performance regression in dracut-install 060
** Merge proposal unlinked: https://code.launchpad.net/~jefferyto/ubuntu/+source/initramfs-tools/+git/initramfs-tools/+merge/467015 -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2065180 Title: performance regression in dracut-install 060 To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/dracut/+bug/2065180/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 2065180] Re: performance regression in dracut-install 060
** Merge proposal linked: https://code.launchpad.net/~jefferyto/ubuntu/+source/initramfs-tools/+git/initramfs-tools/+merge/467015 -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2065180 Title: performance regression in dracut-install 060 To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/dracut/+bug/2065180/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 2065180] Re: performance regression in dracut-install 060
This bug was fixed in the package dracut - 060+5-8ubuntu2 --- dracut (060+5-8ubuntu2) oracular; urgency=medium * perf(dracut-install): preload kmod resources for quicker module lookup (LP: #2065180) -- Benjamin Drung Tue, 04 Jun 2024 16:33:13 +0200 ** Changed in: dracut (Ubuntu) Status: Fix Committed => Fix Released -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2065180 Title: performance regression in dracut-install 060 To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/dracut/+bug/2065180/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 2065180] Re: performance regression in dracut-install 060
This bug was fixed in the package initramfs-tools - 0.142ubuntu28 --- initramfs-tools (0.142ubuntu28) oracular; urgency=medium * hook-functions: Use firmware search order from kernel * mkinitramfs: Resolve hidden dependencies after all modules were copied * reduce number of dracut-install calls. This can be a breaking change. To restore the previous behavior, call apply_add_modules without arguments after a manual_add_modules call. (LP: #2065180) -- Benjamin Drung Tue, 04 Jun 2024 16:26:39 +0200 -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2065180 Title: performance regression in dracut-install 060 To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/dracut/+bug/2065180/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 2065180] Re: performance regression in dracut-install 060
This bug was fixed in the package miniramfs - 1.0.2ubuntu1 --- miniramfs (1.0.2ubuntu1) oracular; urgency=medium * Call apply_add_modules after manual_add_modules (LP: #2065180) -- Benjamin Drung Tue, 04 Jun 2024 16:58:24 +0200 ** Changed in: miniramfs (Ubuntu) Status: Fix Committed => Fix Released ** Changed in: initramfs-tools (Ubuntu) Status: Fix Committed => Fix Released -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2065180 Title: performance regression in dracut-install 060 To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/dracut/+bug/2065180/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 2065180] Re: performance regression in dracut-install 060
I uploaded dracut, initramfs-tools, and miniramfs to oracular and the SRUs for noble. For easier testing, I also uploaded the noble SRU packages to https://launchpad.net/~bdrung/+archive/ubuntu/ppa With the dracut and initramfs-tools SRUs the execution time on the Raspberry Pi Zero 2W reduces to: ``` bdrung@zero2w:~$ sudo hyperfine --warmup 1 -r 10 "update-initramfs -u" Benchmark 1: update-initramfs -u Time (mean ± σ): 207.655 s ± 7.033 s[User: 39.190 s, System: 156.799 s] Range (min … max): 191.754 s … 216.077 s10 runs ``` -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2065180 Title: performance regression in dracut-install 060 To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/dracut/+bug/2065180/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 2065180] Re: performance regression in dracut-install 060
** Changed in: dracut (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided => High ** Changed in: dracut (Ubuntu) Status: New => Fix Committed ** Changed in: miniramfs (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided => High ** Changed in: miniramfs (Ubuntu) Status: New => Fix Committed ** Also affects: initramfs-tools (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided Status: New ** Changed in: initramfs-tools (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided => High ** Changed in: initramfs-tools (Ubuntu) Status: New => Fix Committed -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2065180 Title: performance regression in dracut-install 060 To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/dracut/+bug/2065180/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 2065180] Re: performance regression in dracut-install 060
** Description changed: + [ Impact ] + When compared to Ubuntu 23.10, creating intramfs files with update- initramfs takes 2 to 5 times more time on ARM devices. IIUC, dracut-install usage was added to initramfs-tools to speed up the process. But now its way slower. Even running update-initramfs on jammy, which doesn't use dracut-install, is way faster then the time taken on Noble. first bad commit - https://github.com/dracutdevs/dracut/commit/3de4c7313260fb600507c9b87f780390b874c870 + + Updating the initrd on a Raspberry Pi Zero 2W on Ubuntu 24.04 (noble) + with initramfs-tools 0.142ubuntu25.1 takes over six minutes: + + ``` + bdrung@zero2w:~$ sudo hyperfine --warmup 1 -r 10 "update-initramfs -u" + Benchmark 1: update-initramfs -u + Time (mean ± σ): 402.751 s ± 5.592 s[User: 166.316 s, System: 228.909 s] + Range (min … max): 394.380 s … 411.445 s10 runs + ``` + + [ Test Plan ] + + 1. Measure `update-initramfs -u` before the update. + 2. Log the content of the initrd before the update: `lsinitramfs /boot/initrd.img` + 3. update dracut-install / initramfs-tools-core + 4. Measure `update-initramfs -u`. It should be faster (the performance improvements on amd64 should be very small and might be within the measurement uncertainty). + 5. Check with lsinitramfs that the content of the newly generated initrd hasn't changed. + + [ Where problems could occur ] + + The code that is responsible for including the kernel modules into the + initrd is touched. Negative consequences could be that some needed + kernel modules will not be included any more (should be covered by the + test case) or that building new initrds will fail. + + The initramfs-tools fix changes how manual_add_modules behaves. + `manual_add_modules` does not copy kernel modules, but queues them for + being copied when the newly added function `apply_add_modules` is + called. + + I checked all instances of calls to `manual_add_modules` for possible + regressions (see comment #15). Only miniramfs needs to be adjusted to + also call `apply_add_modules`. But this change could break consumers of + the `manual_add_modules` function that are outside of the Ubuntu + archive. I googled for `apply_add_modules` but found no public outside + users. + + [ Other Info ] $ lsb_release -rd No LSB modules are available. Description: Ubuntu 24.04 LTS Release: 24.04 $ apt-cache policy dracut-install dracut-install: Installed: 060+5-1ubuntu3 Candidate: 060+5-1ubuntu3 Version table: *** 060+5-1ubuntu3 500 500 http://ports.ubuntu.com/ubuntu-ports noble/main arm64 Packages 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2065180 Title: performance regression in dracut-install 060 To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/dracut/+bug/2065180/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 2065180] Re: performance regression in dracut-install 060
** Also affects: lvm2 (Ubuntu Noble) Importance: Undecided Status: New ** Also affects: cryptsetup (Ubuntu Noble) Importance: Undecided Status: New ** Also affects: dracut (Ubuntu Noble) Importance: Undecided Status: New ** Also affects: thin-provisioning-tools (Ubuntu Noble) Importance: Undecided Status: New ** Also affects: miniramfs (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided Status: New -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2065180 Title: performance regression in dracut-install 060 To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/dracut/+bug/2065180/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 2065180] Re: performance regression in dracut-install 060
While checking those packages, I found hooks that do not support zstd- compressed kernel modules: bug #2068026 -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2065180 Title: performance regression in dracut-install 060 To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/dracut/+bug/2065180/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 2065180] Re: performance regression in dracut-install 060
https://salsa.debian.org/kernel-team/initramfs-
tools/-/merge_requests/114 got merged after some iterations. This can be
a breaking change. To restore the previous behavior, call
`apply_add_modules` without arguments after a `manual_add_modules` call.
I checked all Ubuntu source packages that call manual_add_modules for
possible regressions:
```
ac100-tarball-installer
amd64-microcode
aoetools
asahi-scripts
autopkgtest
bcachefs-tools
bcache-tools
bilibop
bootcd
brltty
casper
clevis
cloud-initramfs-tools
cryptsetup
dmraid
flashcache
fsprotect
fuse
fuse3
initramfs-tools
initramfs-tools-ubuntu-core
intel-microcode
librem-ec-acpi
live-boot
ltsp
lvm2
miniramfs
multipath-tools
mythbuntu-diskless
nbd
nvidia-graphics-drivers-384
olpc-xo1
open-infrastructure-system-boot
open-infrastructure-system-tools
open-iscsi
open-vm-tools
osk-sdl
r8168
rapiddisk
s390-tools
sysconfig
tcos
thin-provisioning-tools
unl0kr
v86d
zfcpdump-kernel
zfs-linux
```
amd64-microcode and initramfs-tools have following snippet:
```
if dpkg --compare-versions "${version}" lt 4.4 ; then
manual_add_modules microcode && {
# force_load has broken semanthics when the .ko file is missing
find "${DESTDIR}/${MODULESDIR}" -type f -print | grep -qc
'/microcode\.ko$' && {
verbose "modular microcode driver detected"
force_load microcode
}
}
fi
```
Ubuntu 16.04 LTS "Xenial Xerus" comes with Linux 4.4. Let's assume that
we do not support kernel version < 4.4 in Ubuntu 24.04 LTS "Noble
Numbat".
miniramfs just uses parts from initramfs-tools and need to call
`apply_add_modules`.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2065180
Title:
performance regression in dracut-install 060
To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/dracut/+bug/2065180/+subscriptions
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 2065180] Re: performance regression in dracut-install 060
This bug was fixed in the package cryptsetup - 2:2.7.0-1ubuntu5 --- cryptsetup (2:2.7.0-1ubuntu5) oracular; urgency=medium * initramfs hook: Combine calls to manual_add_modules (LP: #2065180) -- Benjamin Drung Fri, 24 May 2024 09:48:09 +0200 ** Changed in: cryptsetup (Ubuntu) Status: New => Fix Released -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2065180 Title: performance regression in dracut-install 060 To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/dracut/+bug/2065180/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 2065180] Re: performance regression in dracut-install 060
Submitted to Debian: https://salsa.debian.org/kernel-team/initramfs- tools/-/merge_requests/114 -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2065180 Title: performance regression in dracut-install 060 To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/dracut/+bug/2065180/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 2065180] Re: performance regression in dracut-install 060
Results on a Pi 4B booting from SD card. Stock noble: $ sudo hyperfine -r 5 "update-initramfs -u" Benchmark 1: update-initramfs -u Time (mean ± σ): 189.984 s ± 1.618 s[User: 75.720 s, System: 115.323 s] Range (min … max): 187.319 s … 191.142 s5 runs Then running the branch from https://code.launchpad.net/~bdrung/ubuntu/+source/initramfs- tools/+git/initramfs-tools/+ref/ubuntu/devel : $ sudo hyperfine -r 5 "update-initramfs -u" Benchmark 1: update-initramfs -u Time (mean ± σ): 98.473 s ± 2.263 s[User: 26.061 s, System: 73.138 s] Range (min … max): 95.923 s … 101.560 s5 runs So that's a pretty substantial improvement. Still not *quite* at the mantic level, but it's in the same ball-park now, and that's not including the changes to lvm2 or cryptsetup. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2065180 Title: performance regression in dracut-install 060 To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/dracut/+bug/2065180/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 2065180] Re: performance regression in dracut-install 060
Stock noble on a Raspberry Pi Zero 2W: ``` bdrung@zero3:~$ sudo hyperfine -r 5 "update-initramfs -u" Benchmark 1: update-initramfs -u Time (mean ± σ): 415.664 s ± 6.015 s[User: 166.728 s, System: 232.523 s] Range (min … max): 409.139 s … 422.632 s5 runs ``` Replace duplicate calls in thin-provisioning-tools, lvm2, and cryptsetup: ``` bdrung@zero3:~$ sudo hyperfine -r 5 "update-initramfs -u" Benchmark 1: update-initramfs -u Time (mean ± σ): 375.805 s ± 5.753 s[User: 140.586 s, System: 218.345 s] Range (min … max): 369.914 s … 382.866 s5 runs ``` Suggested further reduction of dracut-install calls via https://code.launchpad.net/~bdrung/ubuntu/+source/initramfs- tools/+git/initramfs-tools/+ref/ubuntu/devel: ``` $ sudo hyperfine -r 5 "update-initramfs -u" Benchmark 1: update-initramfs -u Time (mean ± σ): 241.626 s ± 5.278 s[User: 60.018 s, System: 166.183 s] Range (min … max): 235.136 s … 249.194 s5 runs ``` -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2065180 Title: performance regression in dracut-install 060 To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/dracut/+bug/2065180/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 2065180] Re: performance regression in dracut-install 060
This bug was fixed in the package lvm2 - 2.03.16-3ubuntu4 --- lvm2 (2.03.16-3ubuntu4) oracular; urgency=medium * initramfs-tools hook: Combine calls to manual_add_modules (LP: #2065180) -- Benjamin Drung Fri, 24 May 2024 09:42:08 +0200 ** Changed in: lvm2 (Ubuntu) Status: New => Fix Released -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2065180 Title: performance regression in dracut-install 060 To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/dracut/+bug/2065180/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 2065180] Re: performance regression in dracut-install 060
This bug was fixed in the package thin-provisioning-tools - 0.9.0-2ubuntu6 --- thin-provisioning-tools (0.9.0-2ubuntu6) oracular; urgency=medium * initramfs-hook: Combine calls to manual_add_modules (LP: #2065180) -- Benjamin Drung Fri, 24 May 2024 09:08:36 +0200 ** Changed in: thin-provisioning-tools (Ubuntu) Status: New => Fix Released -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2065180 Title: performance regression in dracut-install 060 To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/dracut/+bug/2065180/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 2065180] Re: performance regression in dracut-install 060
I marked thin-provisioning-tools, lvm2, and cryptsetup as affected to reduce the number of manual_add_modules calls in the initramfs-tools hooks in those packages. This will help a bit, but will probably not be enough to make it fast again. ** Also affects: thin-provisioning-tools (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided Status: New ** Also affects: lvm2 (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided Status: New ** Also affects: cryptsetup (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided Status: New -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2065180 Title: performance regression in dracut-install 060 To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/dracut/+bug/2065180/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 2065180] Re: performance regression in dracut-install 060
** Changed in: dracut Status: Unknown => New -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2065180 Title: performance regression in dracut-install 060 To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/dracut/+bug/2065180/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 2065180] Re: performance regression in dracut-install 060
** Bug watch added: github.com/dracut-ng/dracut-ng/issues #316 https://github.com/dracut-ng/dracut-ng/issues/316 ** Also affects: dracut via https://github.com/dracut-ng/dracut-ng/issues/316 Importance: Unknown Status: Unknown -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2065180 Title: performance regression in dracut-install 060 To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/dracut/+bug/2065180/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 2065180] Re: performance regression in dracut-install 060
** Summary changed: - performance regression in dracut-install + performance regression in dracut-install 060 -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2065180 Title: performance regression in dracut-install 060 To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/dracut/+bug/2065180/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
