Bug 1688788 - rpmbuild is order of magnitude slower than the version provides in centos to build SCL
Summary: rpmbuild is order of magnitude slower than the version provides in centos to ...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED EOL
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: scl-utils
Version: 32
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Panu Matilainen
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2019-03-14 12:56 UTC by MERCIER Jonathan
Modified: 2021-05-25 15:00 UTC (History)
10 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2021-05-25 15:00:20 UTC
Type: Bug
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)
src rpm in order to reproduce the bug (15.84 KB, application/x-rpm)
2019-03-14 12:56 UTC, MERCIER Jonathan
no flags Details

Description MERCIER Jonathan 2019-03-14 12:56:25 UTC
Created attachment 1544046 [details]
src rpm in order to reproduce the bug

Dear,

I build Software collection on both centos 7 and fedora 29 and the same build is at least 10 minutes much longer than one run on centos 7.

In order to provide a lead I put below a part of strace which produce the same trace thousand of times. I noticed that only the xxx-runtime part has this behavior other part is done quickly.


To reproduce this issue, download the srpms and rebuild it directly or use the spec file as below:

rpmbuild -ba rpmbuild/SPECS/bowtie2343.spec


-------------------------------------------------------

--- SIGCHLD {si_signo=SIGCHLD, si_code=CLD_EXITED, si_pid=8724, si_uid=1000, si_status=0, si_utime=0, si_stime=0} ---
read(8, "", 8192)                       = 0
close(8)                                = 0
wait4(8724, [{WIFEXITED(s) && WEXITSTATUS(s) == 0}], 0, NULL) = 8724
pipe([6, 7])                            = 0
pipe([8, 9])                            = 0
clone(child_stack=NULL, flags=CLONE_CHILD_CLEARTID|CLONE_CHILD_SETTID|SIGCHLD, child_tidptr=0x7f115c005b90) = 8732
close(6)                                = 0
close(9)                                = 0
select(9, [8], [7], NULL, NULL)         = 1 (out [7])
write(7, "/home/jmercier/test_scl/rpmbuild"..., 136) = 136
close(7)                                = 0
select(9, [8], [], NULL, NULL)          = 1 (in [8])
read(8, "cnrgh-bowtie2343-runtime\n", 8192) = 25
select(9, [8], [], NULL, NULL)          = 1 (in [8])
--- SIGCHLD {si_signo=SIGCHLD, si_code=CLD_EXITED, si_pid=8732, si_uid=1000, si_status=0, si_utime=0, si_stime=0} ---
read(8, "", 8192)                       = 0
close(8)                                = 0
wait4(8732, [{WIFEXITED(s) && WEXITSTATUS(s) == 0}], 0, NULL) = 8732
pipe([6, 7])                            = 0
pipe([8, 9])                            = 0
clone(child_stack=NULL, flags=CLONE_CHILD_CLEARTID|CLONE_CHILD_SETTID|SIGCHLD, child_tidptr=0x7f115c005b90) = 8740
close(6)                                = 0
close(9)                                = 0
select(9, [8], [7], NULL, NULL)         = 1 (out [7])
write(7, "/home/jmercier/test_scl/rpmbuild"..., 135) = 135
close(7)                                = 0
select(9, [8], [], NULL, NULL)          = 1 (in [8])
read(8, "scl-package(cnrgh-bowtie2343)", 8192) = 29
select(9, [8], [], NULL, NULL)          = 1 (in [8])
--- SIGCHLD {si_signo=SIGCHLD, si_code=CLD_EXITED, si_pid=8740, si_uid=1000, si_status=0, si_utime=0, si_stime=0} ---
read(8, "", 8192)                       = 0
close(8)                                = 0
wait4(8740, [{WIFEXITED(s) && WEXITSTATUS(s) == 0}], 0, NULL) = 8740
pipe([6, 7])                            = 0
pipe([8, 9])                            = 0
clone(child_stack=NULL, flags=CLONE_CHILD_CLEARTID|CLONE_CHILD_SETTID|SIGCHLD, child_tidptr=0x7f115c005b90) = 8748
close(6)                                = 0
close(9)                                = 0
select(9, [8], [7], NULL, NULL)         = 1 (out [7])
write(7, "/home/jmercier/test_scl/rpmbuild"..., 135) = 135
close(7)                                = 0
select(9, [8], [], NULL, NULL)          = 1 (in [8])

Comment 1 Panu Matilainen 2019-03-18 12:14:13 UTC
Easily reproduced, looks like an scl-utils issue to me.

Comment 2 Vít Ondruch 2019-03-18 12:52:33 UTC
Unfortunately, the strace output leaves out the interesting bits, e.g. the full path from "write(7, "/home/jmercier/test_scl/rpmbuild"..., 136) = 136". Nevertheless, if I should guess, I think it will have something to do with the %scl_files macro. The (whole) "filesystem" structure is somehow replicated during the build and the directories are owned by the -runtime subpackage. Unfortunately, I don't think there is anybody, who would really know what the macro really does and what it should actually do.

The main problem is RPM with its directory ownership model. If RPM autoremoved empty directories, unless they are explicitly preserved, it would allow removing this ugly macro.

Actually, comparing to a situation, when scl-utils were introduced, there is nowadays filesystem-content package, which lists all the directories owned by the filesystem package, but anyway:

1) I am not really sure how to make use of it.
2) It is definitely not backward compatible (it is not available on RHEL6 and it is available just since RHEL 7.5).

Comment 3 Ben Cotton 2019-10-31 19:39:48 UTC
This message is a reminder that Fedora 29 is nearing its end of life.
Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 29 on 2019-11-26.
It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer
maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a
Fedora 'version' of '29'.

Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you
plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' 
to a later Fedora version.

Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not 
able to fix it before Fedora 29 is end of life. If you would still like 
to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version 
of Fedora, you are encouraged  change the 'version' to a later Fedora 
version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above.

Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's 
lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a 
more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes 
bugs or makes them obsolete.

Comment 4 Ben Cotton 2020-02-11 15:45:57 UTC
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 32 development cycle.
Changing version to 32.

Comment 5 Fedora Program Management 2021-04-29 15:55:17 UTC
This message is a reminder that Fedora 32 is nearing its end of life.
Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 32 on 2021-05-25.
It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer
maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a
Fedora 'version' of '32'.

Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you
plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' 
to a later Fedora version.

Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not 
able to fix it before Fedora 32 is end of life. If you would still like 
to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version 
of Fedora, you are encouraged  change the 'version' to a later Fedora 
version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above.

Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's 
lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a 
more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes 
bugs or makes them obsolete.

Comment 6 Ben Cotton 2021-05-25 15:00:20 UTC
Fedora 32 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2021-05-25. Fedora 32 is
no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further
security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug.

If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of
Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. If you
are unable to reopen this bug, please file a new report against the
current release. If you experience problems, please add a comment to this
bug.

Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.