Stability and Memory Pressure in 8.2

[Tomeu Vizoso]

On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 6:51 PM, C. Scott Ananian <cscott at laptop.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 12:16 PM, Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu at tomeuvizoso.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 5:30 PM, C. Scott Ananian <cscott at cscott.net> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 8:13 AM, Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu at tomeuvizoso.net> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 2:05 PM, James Cameron <quozl at laptop.org> wrote:
>>>>> But I did notice one odd thing that I wasn't fully aware of until now
>>>>> ... the byte-code of the built-in modules was present, complete with doc
>>>>> strings ... for example;
>>>>
>>>> Yes, we are aware of this one and have a fix on the line:
>>>>
>>>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=460334
>>>>
>>>> There has been a thread recently on devel or sugar ml about it.
>>>>
>>>> If you could help us quantify how much this could help, it would be
>>>> much appreciated.
>>>
>>> Here's a quick reference to that previous thread:
>>>  http://lists.laptop.org/pipermail/sugar/2008-August/007969.html
>>>
>>> I guess I meant to turn on -OO on joyride, but didn't quite get around
>>> to it; it would require patching/forking our numpy and python, and
>>> then tweaking the sugar-shell startup to use -OO.  It looked like this
>>> would save ~6M, but I don't know yet how much extra NAND space it
>>> would take for the .pyo files.  I might be able to experiment and make
>>> a build or two on the faster branch to quantify this.
>>
>> Would be great if you could look into it. I guess we could drop the
>> .pyc files and use the .pyo instead.
>
> http://dev.laptop.org/ticket/8431 now tracks the issue.
>
> I've started by putting appropriately patched versions of python and
> numpy into joyride, so you can experiment with -OO on a joyride image
> without having to worry about these particular bugs.  I've confirmed
> that python 2.5.2 and numpy 1.2.0 already have/will have the relevant
> patches, so we probably won't need the fork by our next major release.
>  --scott
>
> p.s. does anyone know why fedora isn't using python 2.5.2 yet?  It was
> released in February '08; I'm surprised that it's not in F9 or F10.

I think the plan is to get one 2.5.1 more in rawhide with some new
patches (including the -OO fix) and then doing a 2.5.2 rpm. If 2.5.2
brings more trouble than what can be solved for F10, then we can go
back to 2.5.1+patches.

Regards,

Tomeu