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 71ECE138247 for ; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 00:28:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3368BE0ABD; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 00:28:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 414A1E0A8B for ; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 00:28:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.5] (unknown [114.91.186.16]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: patrick) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1087633F68B for ; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 00:28:05 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <52CF3F59.8010008@gentoo.org> Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 08:31:21 +0800 From: Patrick Lauer User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 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 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage QOS 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> In-Reply-To: <86r48g8zdc.fsf@moguhome00.in.awa.tohoku.ac.jp> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: d7da44a5-dc09-4879-a2e2-084a43edfb00 X-Archives-Hash: 3718e1da272fe3ff9f83db09662ffbba On 01/10/2014 08:16 AM, heroxbd@gentoo.org wrote: > Igor 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.