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 294A21381F4 for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 01:27:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B0C70E07AF; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 01:27:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-bk0-f53.google.com (mail-bk0-f53.google.com [209.85.214.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27126E0747 for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 01:26:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: by bkwj4 with SMTP id j4so1427816bkw.40 for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 18:26:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=l22q72FsD6nZeBiv4HUIvUEZfEyDKxdSmovj/h8X2a4=; b=HO1hAxGiTTQh3+JM10EGXAG/iJc3OdwBSnOhpEWvzTgeCzcaXTueKOcN864zNH99b5 bQq6qt4aiDzamU4mY95ZNnNwiZnIy94XBn7s07dniMMjSn4YDMoDQ7MBZWeys/2vrQpU ivSFRNMVdDT2PWOsTOlmc0QOEh1xVNAizu0hRxfDQdzlvpz5wzGxUz7YBl/btg4Js1/u pblc1QBcDkKxMHKz0KP+qsTcR24bw0CvvFDy6Lhed7E2GwhFiOELE+iVZG+vUidG5bFj MDpWLRBG1uMF1lF37zhG0bPgItGQRBR+jiz71/vzOkC2kUkm7w+2SMTGcMPWW3/ZSVMc uxxQ== 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 Received: by 10.204.129.8 with SMTP id m8mr1310543bks.62.1345166780197; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 18:26:20 -0700 (PDT) Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.204.14.76 with HTTP; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 18:26:19 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <1344366029.24762.31.camel@TesterTop4> <502377E7.8010803@gentoo.org> <1344535966.2121.6.camel@TesterTop4> <20120809183130.GA6795@linux1> <20120809195727.5d04ccff@googlemail.com> <20120814032416.GA8489@kroah.com> <502D4F41.9080608@malth.us> Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 21:26:19 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: Ex15_x3h_tBTYL60qSUxdUlxB2U Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Questions about SystemD and OpenRC From: Rich Freeman To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Archives-Salt: afea0d9e-8db6-4e4d-96bd-2d2a31efe07f X-Archives-Hash: f3b9ce7c4820cb3eb3bd385cf9a36d62 On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 4:05 PM, Michael Mol wrote: > The limited-visibility build feature discussed a week or so ago would > go a long way in detecting unexpressed build dependencies. I can't say that is a coincidence, but my intent would be to include @system as implicit dependencies, at least until we change that policy (though the morbidly curious could use that as a test in a tinderbox to find packages in @system that are good candidates for removal). I haven't gotten to test it, but after studying sandbox it shouldn't be hard to just hack together a manual test by removing read access to root from the config files and adding in a bazillion files. That should at least let me profile performance/etc. I'm not convinced that there isn't room for improvement, but if it works well as-is then automating this shouldn't be hard at all. If portage has the dependency tree in RAM then you just need to dump all the edb listings for those packages plus @system and feed those into sandbox. That just requires reading a bunch of text files and no searching, so it should be pretty quick. As far as I can tell the relevant calls to check for read access are already being made in sandbox already, and obviously they aren't taking forever. We just have to see if the search gets slow if the access list has tens of thousands of entries (if it does, that is just a simple matter of optimization, but being in-RAM I can't see how tens of thousands of entries is going to slow down a modern CPU even if it is just an unsorted list). Rich