Re: [PATCH 1/3] more python dependence. was: populate: fix horrible performance due to excessive forking

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]



On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 09:07:56AM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 11:24:58AM +0100, David Disseldorp wrote:
> > Hi Darrick,
> > 
> > On Wed, 11 Jan 2023 17:58:17 -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > 
> > > > (removexattr looks like a pain in perl though...)
> > > > 
> > > > Anyway it's late now, I'll look at the diff tomorrow.  
> > > 
> > > ...or thursday now, since I decided to reply to the online fsck design
> > > doc review comments, which took most of the workday.  I managed to bang
> > > out a python script (perl doesn't support setxattr!) that cut the xattr
> > > overhead down to nearly zero.
> > 
> > IIUC we currently only depend on python for the fio perf tests and
> > btrfs/154 . My preference would be to not see it spread further
> 
> I don't appreciate your dismissal of the patch before I've even posted
> it!
> 
> The fstests README clearly lists python3 as a dependency.  Argument
> parsing and xattr calls are provided by the base python3 runtime.  No
> third party libraries are required for this new program, and if they
> were, they'd be added to the README.

Sorry Darrick, that README description might not exact enough :/ some packages
are not *necessary* for the whole fstests running. Their missing might just
cause some single cases be skipped.

The python3 isn't necessary running/building dependence of fstests. Some
people might run fstests without python3 currently. And I don't plan to
make it become *necessary* (no running if no python3) now. If you'd like
to add python3 dependence to common helpers, that might affect more cases.

So how about fall back to old code if no python3? Or you'd like to skipped
populate related testing if no python3? Or use another way to reduce the
hard dependence change.

Thanks,
Zorro

> 
> > (especially if it's just to shave off a little runtime), mostly because
> > it's a pain for dependency tracking.
> > Perhaps you could use perl's syscall(SYS_fsetxattr(), ...)? Well, that or
> 
> Raw system calls are a terrible idea for maintainability.  You'd
> *seriously* rather I open-code the glibc xattr wrappers and make the
> fstests community maintain that for the sake of your preference?
> 
> > rewrite it again in awk ;-P
> 
> WTAF?
> 
> --D
> 
> > Cheers, David
> 




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Filesystems Development]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux