Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Patrick Lauer <patrick@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage QOS
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 00:28:16
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage QOS by
1 On 01/10/2014 08:16 AM, heroxbd@g.o wrote:
2 > Igor <lanthruster@×××××.com> writes:
3 >
4 >> The ebuilds have approximately the same time to install, the failure
5 >> rate is about the same, emerge is getting slower.
6 >
7 > I am curious about the slowness of emerge.
8 >
9 > How about profile the portage and rewrite the time-crucial part in
10 > C/C++, or ideally, borrowing the counterpart from paludis? How feasible
11 > is that?
13 Last I checked paludis wasn't faster - on average portage was a few
14 percents faster.
16 For python things you really want python or C instead of C++...
18 So, what you wanted to ask was:
19 "Which parts of pkgcore can be migrated into portage?"
21 > I guess the dep-tree calculation is the slowest part.
22 Yes, it's doing lots of silly dynamic things (backtracking), and portage
23 codebase
24 on average is not designed for speed.
26 As a first step I would recommend profiling it and removing unneeded
27 stuff (do less work!), rewriting parts in C is a lot of work and not
28 needed for the first round of speedups.


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage QOS Tom Wijsman <TomWij@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage QOS heroxbd@g.o
Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage QOS Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>