Message-ID: <20140828200242.GI3347@wotan.suse.de>
Date:	Thu, 28 Aug 2014 22:02:42 +0200
From:	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...e.com>
To:	Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
Cc:	Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, backports@...r.kernel.org,
	cocci@...teme.lip6.fr
Subject: Re: [Cocci] [PATCH] coccinelle: add pycocci wrapper for
	multithreaded support

On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 08:15:16PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> 
> 
> On Thu, 28 Aug 2014, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 09:32:34PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Thu, 10 Apr 2014, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 07:51:29PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, 2014-04-10 at 10:48 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > You just pass it a cocci file, a target dir, and in git environments
> > > > > > you always want --in-place enabled. Experiments and profiling random
> > > > > > cocci files with the Linux kernel show that using just using number of
> > > > > > CPUs doesn't scale well given that lots of buckets of files don't require
> > > > > > work, as such this uses 10 * number of CPUs for its number of threads.
> > > > > > For work that define more general ruler 3 * number of CPUs works better,
> > > > > > but for smaller cocci files 3 * number of CPUs performs best right now.
> > > > > > To experiment more with what's going on with the multithreading one can enable
> > > > > > htop while kicking off a cocci task on the kernel, we want to keep
> > > > > > these CPUs busy as much as possible. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > That's not really a good benchmark, you want to actually check how
> > > > > quickly it finishes ... If you have some IO issues then just keeping the
> > > > > CPUs busy trying to do IO won't help at all.
> > > > 
> > > > I checked the profile results, the reason the jobs finish is some threads
> > > > had no work or little work. Hence why I increased the number of threads,
> > > > depending on the context (long or short cocci expected, in backports
> > > > at least, the long being all cocci files in one, the short being --test-cocci
> > > > flag to gentree.py). This wrapper uses the short assumption with 10 * num_cpus
> > > > 
> > > > > > Since its just a helper I toss it into the python directory but don't
> > > > > > install it. Hope is that we can evolve it there instead of carrying this
> > > > > > helper within backports.
> > > > > 
> > > > > If there's a plan to make coccinelle itself multi-threaded, what's the
> > > > > point?
> > > > 
> > > > To be clear, Coccinelle *has* a form of multithreaded support but requires manual
> > > > spawning of jobs with references to the max count and also the number thread
> > > > that this new process you are spawning belongs to. There's plans to consider
> > > > reworking things to handle all this internally but as I discussed with Julia
> > > > the changes required would require some structural changes, and as such we
> > > > need to live with this for a bit longer. I need to use Coccinelle daily now,
> > > > so figured I'd punt this out there in case others might make use of it.
> > > 
> > > I agree with Luis.  Multithreading inside Coccinelle is currently a 
> > > priority task, but not a highest priority one.
> > 
> > Folks, anyone object to merging pycocci in the meantime? I keep using it outside
> > of backports and it does what I think most kernel developers expect. This would
> > be until we get proper parallelism support in place.
> 
> Merge away...

Pushed.

  Luis
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists