Performance regression in the debugger to the point of not working on nixpkgs? #165
Labels
No labels
Affects/CppNix
Affects/Nightly
Affects/Only nightly
Affects/Stable
Area/build-packaging
Area/cli
Area/evaluator
Area/fetching
Area/flakes
Area/language
Area/lix ci
Area/nix-eval-jobs
Area/profiles
Area/protocol
Area/releng
Area/remote-builds
Area/repl
Area/repl/debugger
Area/store
bug
Context
contributors
Context
drive-by
Context
maintainers
Context
RFD
crash 💥
Cross Compilation
devx
docs
Downstream Dependents
E/easy
E/hard
E/help wanted
E/reproducible
E/requires rearchitecture
imported
Language/Bash
Language/C++
Language/NixLang
Language/Python
Language/Rust
Needs Langver
OS/Linux
OS/macOS
performance
regression
release-blocker
stability
Status
blocked
Status
invalid
Status
postponed
Status
wontfix
testing
testing/flakey
Topic/Large Scale Installations
ux
No milestone
No project
No assignees
2 participants
Notifications
Due date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set.
Reference: lix-project/lix#165
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue
No description provided.
Delete branch "%!s()"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
We were trying to debug #1 with the following procedure on some local version:
(ran out of patience)
Compare to nix 2.18.2:
Given that this seems to not happen with nix 2.18.2, this seems regression shaped.
also on
5a28d70d1e
observed not reproducing in nix 2.20.5.
bisect blames
86a1121d16
. missing&
in a bit of code only debugger ever hits really hard.https://gerrit.lix.systems/c/lix/+/593
looking at the results afterwards, we are now at 19.5s compared to nix 2.20.5's 14.4s and nix 2.18's 12.8s. still could probably use some optimization but it works, so shrug.
the debugger is definitely going to take a hit for time being due to all the source reparsing it does in the new position system (and nix 2.21, or whatever merged our positions changes, will too). at this level of overhead we're not very concerned, but eval performance itself is probably something we should take a closer look at before release :/