| 1 |
On Wednesday 21 September 2005 02:37, Paul Varner wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, 2005-09-16 at 11:59 -0500, Paul Varner wrote: |
| 3 |
> > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=90680 |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > Author: Paul Varner |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > The current implementation of gentoolkit creates a portage.config |
| 8 |
> > object for every package object that it creates. While this is the |
| 9 |
> > correct thing to do from an object-oriented programming point of view, |
| 10 |
> > this implementation consumes an excessive amount of memory and CPU. |
| 11 |
> > The proposed patch changes the portage.config object for each package |
| 12 |
> > object to point to a single global object. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Updated patch to add a semaphore to control access to the global |
| 15 |
> portage.config object. Unless anyone sees any other issues with this |
| 16 |
> patch, I will be placing it into gentoolkit. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Is the settingslock created in __init__.py accessible in package.py? It may |
| 19 |
just be another gem of python I didn't know about, but wouldn't it be not |
| 20 |
available from that scope? |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Also, the calling of self._settings.reset() would be a big performance hit. |
| 23 |
setcpv() does almost nothing if the per-package settings of the passed cpv |
| 24 |
are identical to those of the previous. reset() on the other hand restacks |
| 25 |
all configuration every time. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Jason Stubbs |
Archives