On 11/24/16 13:13, Vsevolod Stakhov wrote: > On 23/11/2016 16:27, Ed Schouten wrote: >> Hi Hans, >> >> 2016-11-23 15:27 GMT+01:00 Hans Petter Selasky <hps_at_selasky.org>: >>> I've made a patch to hopefully optimise SAT solving in our pkg utility. >> >> Nice! Do you by any chance have any numbers that show the performance >> improvements made by this change? Assuming that the SAT solver of >> pkg(1) uses an algorithm similar to DPLL[1], a change like this would >> affect performance linearly. My guess is therefore that the running >> time is reduced by approximately 5/12. Is this correct? > > There won't be any improvement if you just remove duplicates from SAT > formula. This situation is handled by picosat internally and even for > naive DPLL there is no significant influence of duplicate KNF clauses: > once you've assumed all vars in some clause, you automatically resolve > all duplicates. > > Is there any real improvement of SAT solver speed with this patch? From > my experiences, SAT solving is negligible in terms of CPU time comparing > to other tasks performed by pkg. Hi, I added some code to measure the time for SAT solving. During my test run I'm seeing values in the range 8-10ms for both versions, so I consider that neglible. However, the unpatched version wants to reinstall 185 packages while the non-patched version wants to reinstall 1 package. That has a huge time influential. I'm not that familar with PKG that I can draw any conclusions from this. # Test1: echo "n" | /xxx/pkg/src/pkg-static upgrade --no-repo-update > b.txt # Test2: echo "n" | env PKG_NO_SORT=YES /xxx/pkg/src/pkg-static upgrade --no-repo-update > a.txt Please find the material attached including a debug version patch you can play with. --HPS
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:41:08 UTC