Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage QOS

[Patrick Lauer <patrick@gentoo.org>]

On 01/10/2014 08:16 AM, heroxbd@gentoo.org wrote:
> Igor <lanthruster@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> The ebuilds have approximately the same time to install, the failure
>> rate is about the same, emerge is getting slower.
> 
> I am curious about the slowness of emerge.
> 
> 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?

Last I checked paludis wasn't faster - on average portage was a few
percents faster.

For python things you really want  python or C instead of C++...

So, what you wanted to ask was:
"Which parts of pkgcore can be migrated into portage?"

> I guess the dep-tree calculation is the slowest part.
Yes, it's doing lots of silly dynamic things (backtracking), and portage
codebase
on average is not designed for speed.

As a first step I would recommend profiling it and removing unneeded
stuff (do less work!), rewriting parts in C is a lot of work and not
needed for the first round of speedups.