From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 682C0138805 for ; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 01:03:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 95061E0BA8; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 01:03:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from jacques.telenet-ops.be (jacques.telenet-ops.be [195.130.132.50]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6376AE0B42 for ; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 01:03:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from TOMWIJ-GENTOO ([94.226.55.127]) by jacques.telenet-ops.be with bizsmtp id C1391n00P2khLEN0J139mU; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 02:03:10 +0100 Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 02:02:18 +0100 From: Tom Wijsman To: heroxbd@gentoo.org Cc: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage QOS Message-ID: <20140110020218.0f6244d5@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> In-Reply-To: <86r48g8zdc.fsf@moguhome00.in.awa.tohoku.ac.jp> References: <52ce4eab.463f700a.4b43.16bd@mx.google.com> <52ce9994.24f5980a.0660.342e@mx.google.com> <6345949.JsNcU8lWSX@cschwan-laptop> <52cebfa2.aa78980a.7a02.42e5@mx.google.com> <86r48g8zdc.fsf@moguhome00.in.awa.tohoku.ac.jp> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.9.0 (GTK+ 2.24.22; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=PGP-SHA1; boundary="Sig_/lzmfAHm0zZCnUFe6jFcjPUK"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: 1e774ff4-dab5-4da3-adbc-955c777ca3dc X-Archives-Hash: f48beb3855496bd9bcf01586799c3771 --Sig_/lzmfAHm0zZCnUFe6jFcjPUK Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 09:16:47 +0900 heroxbd@gentoo.org wrote: > Igor writes: >=20 > > The ebuilds have approximately the same time to install, the failure > > rate is about the same, emerge is getting slower. >=20 > I am curious about the slowness of emerge. Try a --backtrack=3D0 approach, I no longer need to increase it. :) > How about profile the portage and rewrite the time-crucial part in > C/C++, or ideally, borrowing the counterpart from paludis? How > feasible is that? http://dev.gentoo.org/~tomwij/files/portage-2.2.7-python-2.7-backtrack-0.png http://dev.gentoo.org/~tomwij/files/portage-2.2.7-python-2.7-backtrack-0-ho= t.png http://dev.gentoo.org/~tomwij/files/portage-2.2.7-python-3.3-backtrack-0.png (hot is the hotshot profiler, it internally checks on the line level instead; 3.3's profiler is obstructed by module loading, no idea why) > I guess the dep-tree calculation is the slowest part. Affirmative. --=20 With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : TomWij@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D --Sig_/lzmfAHm0zZCnUFe6jFcjPUK Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSz0aeAAoJEJWyH81tNOV9PysH/1VnokHstGl/OZyZa01XkB7e j4bZJ+PqGbV2strZH2o3XJkl0X724yYhWBHbcHvrwMrcnsc5afmnnNYBKXKtTRU8 YGSOdWe0rxfDA0IGo+WycAAL5ew0HB0cSMLD/9LWdY2CkPxcaIeWkLiEUHqhJoRb B9orr0oRQduDI8bVX5zUvIhQot97ybfuodVu3rvOxCbN1ugsHY6Oi5u8tusfLtmE Pwm1FLNtUrsqYw2y2DkK9g5RXWB+fF8bGyd8iaw+A/QevOVNWIACr08rOpjcT9EO WZGMENLWsBVKeO2H4wxuTn11CYZ1AoE95SU22HF+VgQPkxjCcoZpwryJjiBm7XM= =13ME -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/lzmfAHm0zZCnUFe6jFcjPUK--