On 12/5/24 09:45, Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 04. 12. 24 20:32, William Cohen wrote: >> On 11/21/24 17:32, Miro Hrončok wrote: >>> On 21. 11. 24 23:11, William Cohen wrote: >>>> Sediment has been designed to work with the RPM build process. >>>> Currently, one needs to use modified RPM macros. These can be created >>>> quickly by writing the output of the sediment make_sediment_rpmmacros >>>> command into ~/.rpmmacros. One will also need to define set the pgo >>>> macro to 1 for the rpmbuild process. The rpm spec file has minimal >>>> modifications. It has the callgraph files stored as a source file and >>>> a defines the global call_graph to the source file that holds the call >>>> graph. >>> >>> Hey Will, >>> >>> let's say I wan to try this for Python. Where do I start? The README on https://github.com/wcohen/sediment is not very helpful. >>> >>> This is what I did based on your email: >>> >>> $ sudo dnf --enable-repo=updates-testing install sediment >>> ... >>> Installing sediment-0:0.9.3-1.fc41.noarch >>> >>> I run make_sediment_rpmmacros, it gives me some macros. Now I am supposed to put those to ~/.rpmmacros. Exccept I never build Python loclly, I use Koji or mock. I can probably amend this to use %global and insert it to python3.14.spec. But what else I need to do? Do you have a step by step kind of document I can follow? >>> >> >> >> Hi Miro, >> >> The tooling doesn't yet fit your work flow of building packages in >> koji and mock. I am looking into ways of addressing that issue. >> >> I an earlier email I mentioned the important thing was have good >> profiling data. Do you have suggestions on some benchmarks that would >> properly exercise the python interpreter? I have used pyperformance >> (https://github.com/python/pyperformance) to get some call graph data >> for python and added that to a python3.13 srpm available at >> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=126526066. ; Note >> Koji is NOT building code layout optimization. One would still need >> to build locally python3.13-3.13.0-1.fc41.src.rpm with sediment-0.9.4 >> (https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=2596791) >> installed and ~/.rpmmacros following steps: >> >> make_sediment_rpmmacros > ~/.rpmmacros >> rpm -Uvh python3.13-3.13.0-1.fc41.src.rpm >> cd ~/rpmbuild/SPECS >> rpmbuild -ba --define "pgo 1" python3.13.spec >> >> The notable difference in the python3.13.spec file is the addition of: >> >> # Call graph information >> SOURCE12: perf_pybenchmark.gv >> %global call_graph %{SOURCE12} >> >> The perf_pybenchmark.gv was generated with steps: >> >> python3 -m pip install pyperformance >> perf record -e branches:u -j any_call -o perf_pybenchmark.data pyperformance run -f -o fc41_x86_python_baseline.json >> perf report -i perf_pybenchmark.data --no-demangle --sort=comm,dso_from,symbol_from,dso_to,symbol_to > perf_pybenchmark.out >> perf2gv < perf_pybenchmark.out > perf_pybenchmark.gv >> >> Added the file to the python srpm: >> >> cp perf_pybenchmark.gv ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES/. >> # edit ~/rpmbuild/SPECS/python3.13.spec to add call graph info >> The improvements were mixed between the code layout optimized python >> and the baseline version of the pyperformance benchmarks. This can be >> seen in the attached python_pgo.out generated by: >> >> python3 -m pyperf compare_to fc41_x86_python_baseline.json fc41_x86_python_pgo.json --table > python_pgo.out >> >> It looks like a number of the benchmarks are microbenchmarks that are >> unlikely the benefit much for the code layout optimizations. >> >> Are there other python performance tests that you would suggest that >> have have larger footprint and would better gauge the possible >> performance improvement from the code layout optimization? >> >> Are there better python code examples to collect profiling data on? > Hey Will, > > thanks for looking into this. > > For your question: Upstream is using this for PGO: > > $ python3.14 -m test --pgo > > Or: > > $ python3.14 -m test --pgo-extended> > In spec, this can be used: > > LD_LIBRARY_PATH=./build/optimized ./build/optimized/python -m test ... Are the tests in the test module small unit tests? If so, those might now show so much benefit as they might have relatively small resident memory footprints. Are any of the a list "Other Python Benchmark" toward the bottom of https://pyperformance.readthedocs.io/ ? CPython: speed.python.org uses pyperf, pyperformance and Codespeed (Django web application) PyPy: speed.pypy.org uses PyPy benchmarks Pyston: pyston-perf and speed.pyston.org Numba benchmarks Cython: Cython Demos/benchmarks pythran: numpy-benchmarks > > --- > > What is the blocker to run this in Koji/mock? > > You do `make_sediment_rpmmacros > ~/.rpmmacros`. > > What's the issue with %defining such macros at spec level? > The macros don't work if there is a circular dependency by being in the spec file and being based on the previous definition. The local .rpmmacros was a way of minimizing the changes in the spec files to try out the code layout optimization. However, as mentioned in earlier email this doesn't work with workflows that are using koji or mock. I am looking into ways of just having the changes in the spec file so that rpms could be built in brew/mock with anappropriately modified spec file and a build dependency on sediment. -Will -- _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
