[bitbake-devel] New progress meters

[Barros Pena, Belen]

On 19/07/2016 10:16, "bitbake-devel-bounces at lists.openembedded.org on
behalf of Paul Eggleton" <bitbake-devel-bounces at lists.openembedded.org on
behalf of paul.eggleton at linux.intel.com> wrote:

>Hi Gary,
>
>On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 08:33:54 Gary Thomas wrote:
>> I quite like the new progress meters, but they seem to not be very
>> accurate.  I was just rebuilding webkitgtk and got this:
>> 
>> 0: webkitgtk-2.12.3-r0 do_compile (pid 30494)  96%
>> |#######################################  | ETA:  0:02:58
>> 
>> Sadly, it sat there, waffling between 02:58 and 03:44 for about
>> 10 minutes...
>> 
>> * How is this [estimate] calculated?
>> * Should I be concerned when it's not accurate (or even moving)?
>
>There are a few different types of progress handling for different types
>of 
>tasks. To be specific in this example, for recipes that inherit cmake
>during 
>do_compile we report the progress that the cmake-produced makefile prints
>out. 
>The ETA, which is implemented in the python-progressbar code we are using
>is 
>kind of a rolling average calculated based on recent progress, so it's
>possible it's inaccurate in this instance if there are places where it
>stalls. 
>Python-progressbar has an alternative ETA mode which we could try, but to
>be 
>honest when the progress value sent to it isn't evenly apportioned with
>respect to time and we don't have any weighting information, there's not
>a lot 
>anyone can do to estimate time remaining accurately. If it's truly
>bothersome 
>we could just turn off the ETA display I suppose.

Big caveat: this is just my opinion. Displaying information we are not
sure is accurate is probably not a good idea: it disconcerts people,
creates false expectations and ultimately undermines trust on the system.

If you are not sure the ETA is reliable, I would remove it.

Just my 2c.

Cheers

Belén
 
>
>> n.b. I wasn't sure the best place for this question, the bitbake
>> list, generic Yocto or OE-core.  Feel free to redirect as needed.
>
>Technically this is an OE question although I know that isn't obvious -
>there 
>are parts of this that are implemented in BitBake and parts in OE, so
>asking 
>here is fine.
>
>Cheers,
>Paul
>
>-- 
>
>Paul Eggleton
>Intel Open Source Technology Centre
>-- 
>_______________________________________________
>bitbake-devel mailing list
>bitbake-devel at lists.openembedded.org
>http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/bitbake-devel