Heya, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) skribis:
> So, we have two problems: compilation time, and memory consumption. I > *think* I’ve identified one of the major causes for both in Guile, > though it’s too early to say exactly how much this will impact resource > consumption for a full Guix compilation. See > <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-devel/2017-09/msg00031.html> > for details. The latest news is that (1) the weak-table fix in Guile¹ helps in general but does not significantly reduce memory consumption when compiling gnu/packages/python.scm (which requires ~1.5G on x86_64), and (2) we’ve identified the compiler’s slot allocator as a major cause of memory consumption and CPU cost when compiling large files like python.scm: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-devel/2017-10/msg00035.html Andy may work on a simpler slot allocator for -O0 and/or large functions that doesn’t exhibit this pathological behavior. In the meantime, our best workaround to reduce memory consumption is… to split large files into smaller ones. Per M-x guix-locations, the candidates are: gnu/packages/python.scm 986 gnu/packages/perl.scm 401 gnu/packages/haskell.scm 348 gnu/packages/bioinformatics.scm 274 gnu/packages/statistics.scm 222 gnu/packages/emacs.scm 213 gnu/packages/xorg.scm 196 gnu/packages/web.scm 188 gnu/packages/gnome.scm 162 gnu/packages/ruby.scm 159 gnu/packages/java.scm 149 gnu/packages/ocaml.scm 126 gnu/packages/tex.scm 107 gnu/packages/linux.scm 106 I think we could focus on the first two or three files. FTR, compiling bioinformatics.scm peaks at ~500 MiB resident on x86_64. Ricardo, WDYT? If we do this, do we split arbitrarily? Like the second half of python.scm goes to python-cont.scm (provided there are no cross top-level references)? Or do you have a better idea? Ludo’. ¹ https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-devel/2017-10/msg00051.html
