Trevor, did you compile it from scratch or are you using the packaged binary?
On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Trevor <trevordi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't know enough to be very helpful, but I can report that on Ubuntu, I
> also see "992 5953 90234" from strace.
>
> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 10:33 AM Han-Wen Nienhuys <hanw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> the repeating syscall is the read, on the same file descriptor. If
>> fontconfig failed a cache, you'd more likely see
>>
>> open() = 6
>> read(6, .. )
>> close(6)
>> open() = 6
>> read(6, .. )
>> close(6)
>>
>> I think.
>>
>> I'll have a look again tonight. Maybe I can attach a debugger (my
>> machine has long lost the ability to compile lilypond. Sigh.)
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 5:00 AM, Werner LEMBERG <w...@gnu.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >>> "The culprit is that the lilypond binary has a bit sub-optimal file
>> >>> access pattern (opening the same file thousands of times and
>> >>> reading it byte by byte, causing a syscall flood - nearly 500K
>> >>> lseek and read operations). On a local machine, because of this
>> >>> issue, it will spend about 1s in I/O syscalls, which is half of the
>> >>> total execution time. This currently does not play nice with our
>> >>> systems, getting it from 1s to over half a minute."
>> >
>> > Interesting, I don't get this behaviour on my openSuSE GNU/Linux box.
>> >
>> >> The font support is reading the same section of some font file over
>> >> and over again.
>> >>
>> >> $ cat f.ly
>> >> { c }
>> >> $ strace -e trace=open,read lilypond f.ly >& log ; grep OTTO log|wc
>> >> 992 5953 90234
>> >
>> > On my box this is
>> >
>> > 1 6 88
>> >
>> >> $ grep OTTO log|head -10
>> >> read(6, "OTTO\0\r\0\200\0\3\0PCFF
>> >> \364\24\241\262\0\0\t\334\0\0\373PFFTM"..., 4096) = 4096
>> >> read(6, "OTTO\0\r\0\200\0\3\0PCFF
>> >> \364\24\241\262\0\0\t\334\0\0\373PFFTM"..., 4096) = 4096
>> >> read(6, "OTTO\0\r\0\200\0\3\0PCFF
>> >> \364\24\241\262\0\0\t\334\0\0\373PFFTM"..., 4096) = 4096
>> >>
>> >> the number of calls is apparently proportional to the number of glyphs
>> >> in the file:
>> >>
>> >> $ cat f.ly
>> >> \repeat unfold 100 { c }
>> >>
>> >> $ strace -e trace=open,read lilypond f.ly >& log ; grep OTTO log|wc
>> >> 40929 245575 3724501
>> >
>> > For me, it is again
>> >
>> > 1 6 88
>> >
>> >> Werner may have better hunches than I which code is really
>> >> responsible for this.
>> >
>> > Maybe a problem with fontconfig? Where is the location of
>> > fontconfig's database of available fonts on your system? This must be
>> > created in advance so that lilypond can access it. If it is missing,
>> > fontconfig tries to build it (which makes e.g. the first invocation of
>> > lilypond very slow on a Windows box since there is no global
>> > fontconfig database).
>> >
>> > Is it possible that fontconfig always fails so that it tries again and
>> > again?
>> >
>> >
>> > Werner
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Han-Wen Nienhuys - hanw...@gmail.com - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen
--
Han-Wen Nienhuys - hanw...@gmail.com - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
