[06:14] <zyga-x240> o/
[06:14] <mborzecki> morning
[06:15] <mborzecki> zyga-x240: maciek@galeon:~ sudo apparmor_parser --version                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         <<< 1 ↵
[06:15] <mborzecki> AppArmor parser version 3.0.0
[06:15] <zyga-x240> updades :)
[06:15] <mborzecki> let's see if anything is broken
[06:15] <zyga-x240> upgrades*
[06:16] <mborzecki> zyga-x240: hmm apparmor="DENIED" operation="open" profile="/usr/lib/snapd/snap-confine" name="/proc/4598/attr/apparmor/current" pid=4598 comm="snap-confine" requested_mask="r" denied_mask="r" fsuid=0 ouid=0
[06:16] <zyga-x240> I saw that but I'm not sure when it happens
[06:16] <mborzecki> and apparmor="DENIED" operation="capable" profile="/usr/lib/snapd/snap-confine" pid=4598 comm="snap-confine" capability=4  capname="fsetid"
[06:16] <zyga-x240> that's documented on the forum
[06:18] <mborzecki> zyga-x240: did we fix taht in master?
[06:18] <zyga-x240> I have a vague memory someone did (the 1st one), let me look
[06:19] <zyga-x240> edda21d7b2b
[06:19] <zyga-x240> but that's an old patch
[06:19] <zyga-x240> well
[06:19] <zyga-x240> maybe not released
[06:19] <zyga-x240> it's from September
[06:19] <zyga-x240> Ian fixed it
[06:22] <zyga-x240> rogpeppe: hello
[06:22] <zyga-x240> rogpeppe: if you have a moment we could really use your help to obtain a few more logs
[07:51] <zyga-x240> brb, logging back to X11
[07:53] <zyga-x240> re
[07:59] <zyga-x240> eh, x11 has gpu issues
[07:59] <zyga-x240> wayland is ok but has wayland issues
[07:59] <zyga-x240> man
[08:05] <mborzecki> hahah
[08:05] <mborzecki> zyga-x240: btw. what wayland issues? screen sharing?
[08:06] <zyga-x240> mborzecki: 150% zoom makes every non-native wayland thing entirely blurry
[08:06] <zyga-x240> code, hexchat all look like garbage
[08:06] <zyga-x240> btw, I learned why macos handles this better recently
[08:06] <zyga-x240> they scale down
[08:06] <zyga-x240> not up
[08:06] <zyga-x240> it's such a silly thing
[08:06] <zyga-x240> they render at the higher resolution and scale down for fractional scaling
[08:07] <zyga-x240> it seems we do the opposite
[08:07] <zyga-x240> anyway, X is tearing and leaving glitches everywhere lately
[08:07] <zyga-x240> but has different fractional scaling that works better
[08:07] <zyga-x240> but is unusable while scrolling anything (garbage on screen)
[08:07] <zyga-x240> waland doesn't have that but makes everything blurry
[08:09] <zyga-x240> mborzecki: my x240 has a 1080 panel that needs 125%-150% scaling to be sensible
[08:11] <mborzecki> zyga-x240: hexchat is still gtk2 right?
[08:11] <mborzecki> and code is electon & gtk2 as well?
[08:12] <zyga-x240> no idea, don't care, it's just broken
[08:13] <zyga-x240> mborzecki: hexchat links to 76 libraries
[08:14] <mborzecki> zyga-x240: yeah, hexchat is gtk2, i mean it's not going to be better if you use old toolkit, same way old apps on windows look blurry
[08:16] <zyga-x240> mborzecki: on macos all the apps render sensibly because of what I said
[08:16] <zyga-x240> just little annoyances
[08:16] <zyga-x240> let alone that nobody uses old toolkits there
[08:16] <zyga-x240> mborzecki: I can ssh -X to this machine and get nicely looking gitk
[08:18] <pedronis> mborzecki: hi, does this make sense https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9474#issuecomment-706041940 ? or should we chat about it
[08:18] <zyga-x240> mborzecki: I take that back, x11 has tearing as well, just maybe less frequently
[08:19] <zyga-x240> hello pedronis
[08:20] <mborzecki> pedronis: hi, yes, that sounds fine, i'll add some comments around (Managed|Truted)Assets that one can call them without rootdir too
[08:21] <zyga-x240> pedronis: do you have an opinion on the need to access the backend in doInstall?
[08:21] <zyga-x240> pedronis: should I forfeit that specific refactor or should I go ahead and make that possible?
[08:22] <pedronis> zyga-x240: first of all backend is two things, a package and an almost stateless object that exist mostly for mocking convenience (at least originally)
[08:23] <pedronis> zyga-x240: so we have some options
[08:23] <zyga-x240> pedronis: right
[08:23] <pedronis> zyga-x240: can you point me at which bits is called form doInstall, is that the soft check?
[08:23] <zyga-x240> I think we could construct the backend in doInstall or create a 2nd object that is 100% stateless and only used by doInstall for that single request
[08:23] <zyga-x240> yes, correct
[08:24] <zyga-x240> specifically the snap run lock is acquired around the cgroup scan
[08:25] <pedronis> zyga-x240: is this comment we are talking about: https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/8573#discussion_r497444927 ?
[08:26] <zyga-x240> pedronis: yes
[08:27] <pedronis> zyga-x240: that bit respect dirs.GlobalRootDir right? so it wouldn't really need a lot of mocking?
[08:27] <zyga-x240> indeed they do
[08:27] <zyga-x240> both of them
[08:28] <zyga-x240> (locking and scanning)
[08:28] <pedronis> anyway to me it mess that WithSnapLock could be simply a function the backend package
[08:28] <pedronis> s/mess/seems/  (that is a weird typo)
[08:29] <zyga-x240> haha
[08:29] <zyga-x240> ok, let me try that quickly, I think this is fine
[08:30] <zyga-x240> we could create a concept of an early request backend if we have more methods that need to be called when constructing tasks
[08:30] <zyga-x240> but for now I think that's not required
[08:51] <mborzecki> pedronis: do you think you'll be able to take a look at https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9443 ?
[08:52] <pedronis> mborzecki: maybe, it also needs a 2nd review
[08:53] <mborzecki> pedronis: yeah, i'll poke claudio about it
[09:23] <zyga> 2re
[09:38] <ijohnson> hi pedronis good morning! do you think you will be able to give a quick look at #9418 today?
[09:41] <zyga-x240> hey ijohnson
[09:44] <ijohnson> Hey zyga-x240
[09:49] <pedronis> ijohnson: I didn't do a proper review but left some comments
[09:50] <pedronis> ijohnson: I also answered maybe your question about how postponent work
[09:51] <pedronis> ijohnson: I made a comment also in the fakestore one
[09:51] <ijohnson> Thanks!
[09:51] <ijohnson> I'll look now
[10:07] <mborzecki> zyga-x240: little something for you https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9484 (cc ijohnson, you have a beefy machine iirc too)
[10:07] <zyga-x240> mborzecki: oh
[10:07] <zyga-x240> nice
[10:07] <zyga-x240> I'll check perf shortly
[10:07] <mborzecki> it's run as part of run-checks --static now, so every second matters xD
[10:08] <zyga-x240> mborzecki: the biggest bottleneck is seccomp tests
[10:08] <zyga-x240> those are sequential
[10:08] <zyga-x240> due to how the test is written
[10:08] <mborzecki> zyga-x240: and they have system wide side effects too :/
[10:08] <zyga-x240> mborzecki: do they?
[10:08] <zyga-x240> bulk of the cost is compilation of C
[10:09] <zyga-x240> I really doubt they do
[10:09] <zyga-x240> they run as user
[10:09] <zyga-x240> not as root
[10:09] <mborzecki> zyga-x240: they do on my system, apaprently some weird address faimilies are tried what triggers modules to be loaded
[10:10] <mborzecki> let me grab a log
[10:10] <zyga-x240> ah
[10:10] <zyga-x240> that's one time
[10:10] <zyga-x240> but wierd still
[10:10] <zyga-x240> *weird
[10:11] <zyga-x240> IIRC most of those are just compile time costs
[10:11] <zyga-x240> and can be ran in parallel with some changes to the test
[10:11] <zyga-x240> it'd be nice if check supported that
[10:11] <zyga-x240> IIRC testing supports sub-tests and parallelism
[10:11] <zyga-x240> but it's not surfaced to check
[10:11] <mborzecki> zyga-x240: lsmod and ip a before and after: https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/qymsZGcMqH/
[10:12] <zyga-x240> mborzecki: sure but the only question is: do those matter for speed
[10:12] <zyga-x240> they run either way
[10:12] <mborzecki> zyga-x240: idk, it's just annoying, that's why i don't run snap-seccomp unit tests often
[10:12] <zyga-x240> doesn't happen here, probably not blacklisted on arch and blacklisted in ubuntu
[10:13] <zyga-x240> mborzecki: hmm
[10:13] <zyga-x240> the patch is not doing much for concurrency, does it?
[10:14] <zyga-x240> it's still sequential shellchcek
[10:14] <zyga-x240> ah
[10:14] <zyga-x240> there's a thread executor hidden
[10:14] <zyga-x240> that makes sense now
[10:14] <zyga-x240> it's always surprising that python list.append does not require locking
[10:15] <zyga-x240> implicit mutex at the granularity of several micro-ops
[10:15] <zyga-x240> anyway, looks good
[10:15] <mborzecki> cuts down the execution on my system a bit too
[10:15] <zyga-x240> mborzecki: btw, is findfiles change actually useful?
[10:16] <zyga-x240> ah, I misread the diff
[10:16] <zyga-x240> man I'm useless today
[10:16] <mborzecki> zyga-x240: heh tell me about it, i got up at 5am :P
[10:16] <zyga-x240> brb
[10:16] <zyga-x240> cold and tired
[10:17] <mborzecki> fun, shaves off 1m off the unit tests run on github
[10:17] <mborzecki> off of
[10:17] <mborzecki> off from?
[10:21] <ijohnson> mborzecki: nice, I do see somewhat of a speedup as well, real time of 72s -> 62s
[10:21] <mborzecki> ijohnson: cool, thanks for checking
[10:22] <ijohnson> that's amazing that it shaves off 1m from the github changes
[10:23] <zyga-x240> re
[10:23] <zyga-x240> brought a lot of hot tea
[10:23] <zyga-x240> maybe I won't spill it today
[10:23] <zyga-x240> it's cold so I might as well boot my desktop
[10:23] <zyga-x240> it's a small heater after all
[10:24] <zyga-x240> I'll post my numbers in a moment
[10:24] <mvo> mborzecki: nice on in 9484!
[10:24] <zyga-x240> hey mvo, good morning
[10:24] <mvo> hey zyga-x240
[10:24] <zyga-x240> (well, so-so morning for me but that's not a general statement) :D
[10:25] <zyga-x240> (lots of frustrating things in the morning)
[10:25] <zyga-x240> (before work)
[10:25] <mvo> zyga-x240: oh, sad to hear that
[10:31] <zyga-x240> mborzecki: how do you measure time?
[10:31] <zyga-x240> with time
[10:31] <mborzecki> zyga-x240: /usr/bin/time -v
[10:31] <zyga-x240> my baseline was real 49s, user 2m19s
[10:33] <zyga-x240> with your branch real 34s (same user value)
[10:34] <zyga-x240> ah wait
[10:34] <zyga-x240> stupid vm
[10:36] <zyga-x240> mborzecki: I think there's something sequential still
[10:36] <zyga-x240> mborzecki: cpu load that's actually parallel is pretty short, bulk of the work is not concurrent
[10:36] <mborzecki> zyga-x240: yes, the sections in a file are processed sequentially
[10:36] <zyga-x240> mborzecki: 42 seconds
[10:36] <zyga-x240> worse than before?
[10:36] <zyga-x240> user 3m8s
[10:38] <mborzecki> zyga-x240: hm?
[10:38] <zyga-x240> there's an all-core load for about 2 seconds
[10:38] <zyga-x240> then lots of sequential work
[10:39] <zyga-x240> as in, really most of the time
[10:39] <zyga-x240> 40 seconds on 2nd run
[10:39] <zyga-x240> it's not important, just wondering what's going on
[10:40] <mborzecki> zyga-x240: right, you can run ./sprad-shellcheck --verbose, my bet is it's still processing the sections of spread.yaml while the reset of the files is already done
[10:41] <mborzecki> zyga-x240: so it'd be nice to call checksection() in parallel too
[10:42] <mborzecki> zyga-x240: feel free to play with it ;) it's a nice distraction
[10:47] <zyga-x240> fixed process pool to work
[10:55] <zyga-x240> mborzecki: made some improvements we discussed, 9seconds
[10:55] <zyga-x240> :D
[10:55] <zyga-x240> now all cores do light up
[10:56] <zyga-x240> 49 seconds down to 9
[10:56] <mborzecki> haha nice
[10:56] <mborzecki> zyga-x240: the sections now run in parallel right?
[10:56] <mborzecki> i mean suites
[10:57] <zyga-x240> yes
[10:57] <zyga-x240> uh
[10:57] <zyga-x240> i rm'd the file!
[10:57] <zyga-x240> fck
[10:57] <zyga-x240> one moment
[10:57] <zyga-x240> cp wrong way
[10:58] <zyga-x240> ok restored
[10:58] <zyga-x240> thank god for good undo in code
[10:59] <mborzecki> hahah
[11:00] <zyga-x240> mborzecki: can I push back to your PR?
[11:00] <mborzecki> zyga-x240: i'll land 9484 and we can iterate on top
[11:01] <mborzecki> zyga-x240: landed, open a PR please
[11:01] <zyga-x240> ok
[11:02] <zyga-x240> mborzecki: 9485
[11:02] <zyga-x240> I have black re-format stashed as well
[11:02] <mborzecki> thx
[11:04] <zyga-x240> ijohnson: could you run my version as well
[11:04] <zyga-x240> I wonder how that improves things on your machine
[11:04] <ijohnson> where is your version
[11:04] <ijohnson> oh 9485 ?
[11:05] <zyga-x240> yes
[11:07] <mborzecki> zyga-x240: nice, 28s here
[11:07] <mborzecki> haha Percent of CPU this job got: 1241%
[11:08] <zyga-x240> that's down from what?
[11:08] <mborzecki> 59
[11:10] <zyga-x240> nice!
[11:10] <zyga-x240> good enough for now
[11:10] <zyga-x240> :)
[11:10] <ijohnson> done
[11:10] <ijohnson> very nice
[11:11] <ijohnson> all my cpu utilization's light up bright red :-)
[11:16] <mborzecki> poor chaps with systems having only 2 cores
[11:17] <mborzecki> zyga-x240: have you tried running it on x240? :P
[11:17] <zyga-x240> mborzecki: ope
[11:18] <zyga-x240> 2 cores
[11:19] <mborzecki> hah my i7 x250 hit thermall throttling right away
[11:19] <zyga-x240> unfortunately idle power usage is so low it's not a good room heater
[11:19] <zyga-x240> haha
[11:19] <zyga-x240> oh intel
[11:20] <mborzecki> still 73s total
[11:21] <zyga-x240> mborzecki: what's a better upgrade, 8core 4800u amd laptop or 16 core amd desktop (5950x)
[11:23] <mborzecki> zyga-x240: not sure about the laptop, from what i read the last series of mobile apus had driver issues
[11:28] <zyga-x240> mborzecki: really? I heard only good stuff about this lineup
[11:28] <zyga-x240> (we had those thinkpads in cert lab for months)
[11:29] <zyga-x240> mborzecki: maybe 3000 series had issues, don't know about htose
[11:29] <mborzecki> zyga-x240: haven't had one myself, mostly following /r/Amd
[11:29] <zyga-x240> mborzecki: as kissiel, he has one at home
[11:30] <zyga-x240> mborzecki: not sure if 4800u or 4700 or other
[11:30]  * zyga-x240 ran away from the office
[11:30] <zyga-x240> too cold, need to turn on heating
[12:34] <mvo> cmatsuoka: silly question, do we ever call UnlockVolumeIfEncrypted() with "lockKeysOnFinish != true"? or is there a use-case for this :) ?
[12:35] <cmatsuoka> mvo: currently not because we only have one encrypted partition, but with ubuntu-save things can be different
[12:35] <pedronis> mvo: not right now, but it's a complicated question
[12:36] <pedronis> depends on the final api and how we do save
[12:36] <mvo> cmatsuoka, pedronis thank you!
[12:37] <zyga-x240> hmm
[12:37]  * zyga-x240 looks at unexpected test outcome
[12:41] <zyga-x240> oh
[12:41] <zyga-x240> I found a real bug :)
[12:41] <zyga-x240> (real bugs are the best)
[12:43] <zyga-x240> fixed
[12:43] <mvo> zyga-x240: nice
[12:49] <zyga-x240> pedronis: https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/8573 is ready for review again
[12:49] <zyga-x240> I will pick up the next branch now
[12:50] <pedronis> ok, I put it beack in my queue
[12:51] <zyga-x240> thank you
[12:51] <zyga-x240> I'll follow up with this plan now: https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/7700#issuecomment-706162240
[12:52] <zyga-x240> oh standup is soon
[13:28] <zyga-x240> mvo: are you going to the resource utilization session?
[13:28] <mvo> zyga-x240: when is that? now?
[13:29] <mvo> zyga-x240: aha, the limit snap resource usage?
[13:29] <mvo> zyga-x240: definitely will be in this one
[13:42] <zyga> mvo 16:30
[13:43] <zyga> sorry, I was in the kitchen
[13:43] <zyga> great, see you there
[15:08] <ijohnson> degville: I made a couple edits to the system options page again, could you take a look when you get a chance? I added the system.watchdog.{runtime,shutdown}-timeout and system.journal.persistent options there
[15:08] <degville> ijohnson: yes, of course - thanks for adding them! I'll look now.
[15:11] <ijohnson> thanks degville I had difficulty finding good docs upstream about the watchdog ones, I mostly used the language from https://manpages.debian.org/jessie/systemd/systemd-system.conf.5.en.html because that came up first in my google searches
[16:14] <degville> ijohnson: thanks for the man page link - that was super helpful.
[16:15] <ijohnson> nice, yeah it's not super well documented and actually the option name might have been changed to something else in newer systemd releases I think
[16:40]  * zyga just got a note that his imac is fixed, 5 working days and they kept that, wow :)
[16:40] <zyga> brand new screen, free of charge
[16:41] <zyga> need to pick it up tomorrow
[16:43] <ogra> if youo're sill allowed to go outsde by then at least
[16:43] <ogra> *you're still
[16:49] <zyga> ogra I can just put some cloth on the imac and make a tent
[16:50] <zyga> and read greek philosophy to dogs that want to eat me
[16:54] <ogra> haha
[19:07] <pedronis> ijohnson: I asked a question in your SU notes
[19:07] <ijohnson> pedronis: looking now
[19:08] <ijohnson> pedronis: yeah sorry meant ubuntu-boot
[19:08] <pedronis> ah ok
[19:08] <pedronis> that makes more sense :)
[19:08] <ijohnson> haha yes indeed
[19:14] <pedronis> ijohnson: anyway we store model and we need to store encrypted keys there possibly
[19:14] <pedronis> so we might need one, though it could be quite tiny
[19:15] <ijohnson> pedronis: ah ok actually that makes things a lot easier if we need to store something there