From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Nov 27 07:39:17 2021 Received: (at 52117) by debbugs.gnu.org; 27 Nov 2021 12:39:17 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:33161 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1mqwz6-0002Lh-UR for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 27 Nov 2021 07:39:17 -0500 Received: from mail-wr1-f51.google.com ([209.85.221.51]:42514) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1mqwz1-0002LQ-Sb for 52117@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 27 Nov 2021 07:39:15 -0500 Received: by mail-wr1-f51.google.com with SMTP id c4so24722791wrd.9 for <52117@debbugs.gnu.org>; Sat, 27 Nov 2021 04:39:11 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=c3QjDalJejgE+HwT/NEaRB5LN07aELHzWv7bCs4myBE=; b=Mu0qwK/fd0jt0dxcz++LqzIB2g2bxPPYWAQb15yzCfClsWEG3K2zCUvKl1KuuAhcvo R5n4dD2co9O7EhTe94UfnV8pLJ3yJCwfhDGq6Xmv5NoJGQ8jErZjCfxLWnv/KM5EOqyQ AiYtF9OxAICHBhrmvI9Q9znMERl5B1K1QqSArn9AFwAaYb9qd5sOv41d+4hjaBStNHi8 Xgz6N5mSRvjKvgAhiSVq3I/2whjnvJpzyUKGQDOei2xGYObki3gSbJaQJtKieGFL32c3 VpR2TcOGTjm1ok0KsK5KaDVAWfrLVKX5B744w5AgRRx7E7flWMITk5E6yZQ/B9X4MzSm 0kIw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=c3QjDalJejgE+HwT/NEaRB5LN07aELHzWv7bCs4myBE=; b=fdd/W4bQKDXqCS9zZnYw8lvWfqbi+BF2UlgEX7U+isgczrPCd/V+3UaB1WNmdc0cEF MkSRwe+2MHlaUTOSs+GZRgdquVb0z0zkpFVEdUGtH5pzCn3Uk+gSv66StIuXG4nlL1YB hQToX+lxQNfk02BI8VEo0i7NgznTYOLdSFb9EYoCXKKGpHcmLgDkJp521ET6YX9aAHJs yLFDN/VfPPz1r18Y1YF6U3LWvykJ5T8UNGPjjoxdqH9S6a2mX/sCYppe7mlzVUrZZdXh 6h9TF0iMI3T6bpQPw2fReqB2EYatHxGtiv/kGmjMwBmIf/4GDzyrexq3ZvF/fzRD1s+k p23Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531bH8xrExurYNXQIIrY4WCgdp8VdRJdkLYRjx4TOJzOwKb9b6y9 2ogm65mgpyU1Lonn/y+C4+9eN95QvRg= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxquJDbn0vREjzBmccIs0ZrKZFA2LUy47nqtNlk2WTU3URxjH+BGNZdeQZ8tgcKiz1GT+kAmw== X-Received: by 2002:a5d:550f:: with SMTP id b15mr20150976wrv.212.1638016745968; Sat, 27 Nov 2021 04:39:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from lili (2a01cb04061b8800444bb83f830ae295.ipv6.abo.wanadoo.fr. [2a01:cb04:61b:8800:444b:b83f:830a:e295]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x1sm8354109wru.40.2021.11.27.04.39.05 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sat, 27 Nov 2021 04:39:05 -0800 (PST) From: zimoun To: Maxim Cournoyer Subject: Re: bug#52117: [core-updates-frozen] [PATCH 0/6] Fix Julia packages. In-Reply-To: <87fsri8ez5.fsf_-_@gmail.com> References: <20211125233559.34575-1-zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> <20211125233559.34575-2-zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> <87fsri8ez5.fsf_-_@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2021 13:38:57 +0100 Message-ID: <861r31kc2m.fsf@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 52117 Cc: 52117@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) Hi Maxim, Thanks for the review and the improved patch. I am sorry if the commit message and/or changelog I provided was badly worded, but somehow it was an attempt to explain the odd behaviour =E2=80= =93 at least counter-intuitive since I initially felt into when sending the very first patch allowing parallel tests and you felt too, I guess. :-) On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 at 22:17, Maxim Cournoyer w= rote: >> --- >> guix/build/julia-build-system.scm | 8 +++++--- >> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/guix/build/julia-build-system.scm b/guix/build/julia-build-= system.scm >> index f0dc419c17..af478fd4a3 100644 >> --- a/guix/build/julia-build-system.scm >> +++ b/guix/build/julia-build-system.scm >> @@ -112,7 +112,10 @@ (define* (check #:key tests? source inputs outputs = julia-package-name >> (builddir (string-append out "/share/julia/")) >> (jobs (if parallel-tests? >> (number->string (parallel-job-count)) >> - "1"))) >> + "1")) >> + (nprocs (if parallel-tests? >> + (string-append "--procs=3D" jobs) >> + ""))) >> ;; With a patch, SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH is honored >> (setenv "SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH" "1") >> (setenv "JULIA_DEPOT_PATH" builddir) >> @@ -122,8 +125,7 @@ (define* (check #:key tests? source inputs outputs j= ulia-package-name >> ""))) >> (setenv "JULIA_CPU_THREADS" jobs) >> (setenv "HOME" "/tmp") >> - (invoke "julia" "--depwarn=3Dyes" >> - (string-append "--procs=3D" jobs) >> + (invoke "julia" "--depwarn=3Dyes" nprocs > > Here nprocs can be ""; is it really OK to pass an empty string argument > to julia? Yes it is OK. When #:parallel-tests? sets to #f, my patch leads to the call =E2=80=9Cjulia --depwarn=3Dyes=E2=80=9D which is valid. Your modified= patch adds another test but leads to the same call =E2=80=9Cjulia --depwarn=3Dyes=E2= =80=9D. --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- + (job-count (if parallel-tests? + (parallel-job-count) + 1)) + ;; The --proc argument of Julia *adds* extra processors rather = than + ;; specify the exact count to use, so zero must be specified to + ;; disable parallel processing... [..] + (apply invoke "julia" + `("--depwarn=3Dyes" + ,@(if parallel-tests? + ;; XXX: ... but '--procs' doesn't accept 0 as a valid + ;; value, so just omit the argument entirely. + (list (string-append "--procs=3D" + (number->string additional-proc= s))) + '()) --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- So because of 2 tests. I think your modified patch is more =E2=80=9Ccomplicated=E2=80=9D. :-) About this, --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- + (additional-procs (max 0 (1- job-count)))) --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- I considered that it was not a big deal; initially, I did something similar in =E2=80=99let=E2=80=99 but remove it because it changes nothing f= rom my experiments. In fact, because =E2=80=99--procs=E2=80=99 overrides JULIA_CP= U_THREADS and run Julia with n or n+1 is more or less the same for the Julia land, IMHO. Well, it is not clear what is the load for the main worker. And JULIA_CPU_THREADS=3D1 is required for running using only one worker. Anyway, this changes nothing, practically speaking. :-) Indeed, it is better and more consistent. Last, I am confused by Cuirass. Because it says evaluation complete but julia-* packages are scheduled. https://ci.guix.gnu.org/eval/48802?status=3Dpending And for instance, https://ci.guix.gnu.org/build/1853818/log/raw BTW, Berlin has some issues I guess #48720 - d508c5b was pushed CommitDate: Fri Nov 26 23:21:45 2021 +0100 - 941f776 was pushed CommitDate: Sat Nov 27 01:22:32 2021 -0500 - 9c4752b was pushed CommitDate: Sat Nov 27 10:24:12 2021 +0100=20 #48802 - 1b8a18b was pushed CommitDate: Sat Nov 27 11:48:17 2021 +0100 I do not understand why 941f776 or 9c4752b had not been evaluated. Could you give a look? For example, by restarting the evaluation? Cheers, simon