Re: Couple of patches
Raphael Geissert <atomo64+debian@gmail.com> writes:
> Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I don't want to dismiss using threads, since I know that making disk
>> access asynchronous can help quite a bit, but I'm very nervous about
>> introducing the complexity of thread management into the Lintian code.
>> Threads tend to cause a lot of obscure and difficult-to-debug
>> concurrency problems.
>> If we can avoid adding threads and still get reasonable performance, I
>> think it will save us headaches later.
> At least the collection scripts could be run in parallel. All the
> collection scripts with the same Order should run in parallel just fine,
> and once the dependencies are done or all the scripts of the same Order
> are done the next ones could be run. That ain't complex, it would be
> just like running <command> & in a shell.
True, and we could do that with IPC::Run right now. That's a good idea.
Some actual merit for having those collect scripts as separate scripts
instead of embedded Perl code!
>> I suspect that this (and precompiling the data files for Lintian::Data
>> objects, which is a similar problem) would save less than 1% of
>> Lintian's run time, and hence not be particularly worth it, but I could
>> very well be wrong). If I'm wrong, though, it's a good idea. I like
>> the idea of precompiling for the final package.
> I just finished a PoC, just need to find out why some white spaces won't
> go away, because with them the final files are actually a lot larger
> than the original files. According to the profiling data, read and parse
> _dpkg_control were consuming a bit over 2% of the total time required to
> check oo.o-core. With my PoC read_dpkg_control only consumes 1%
Wow, that's a lot more than I expected -- that's 1% of the run time for a
fairly large process. It may well be worth it, then.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: