Bug 251324
| Summary: | benchmarks/wrk: Add support for ARM64 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Ports & Packages | Reporter: | Oleksandr Tymoshenko <gonzo> | ||||||
| Component: | Individual Port(s) | Assignee: | Sergey A. Osokin <osa> | ||||||
| Status: | Closed FIXED | ||||||||
| Severity: | Affects Only Me | CC: | dch, diizzy, emaste | ||||||
| Priority: | --- | Flags: | bugzilla:
maintainer-feedback?
(osa) |
||||||
| Version: | Latest | ||||||||
| Hardware: | Any | ||||||||
| OS: | Any | ||||||||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||||
Hi Oleksandr, thanks for the report and the patch. In case it isn't break any functionality it's probably better to completely switch to lang/luajit-openresty. Functionality-wise it's the same, I ran my lua scripts using both implementations. openresty version seems a bit slower on the same machine: my scenario pre-generates a bunch of random numbers (offsets) for every worker thread and it takes visibly longer for openresty version: ~5sec vs ~25sec. I'd consider it a regression on x86, but for arm64 functional (if a bit slow app) is better than no app. Just out of curiosity I tried to isolate the logic from the script in an isolated benchmark and both LuaJIT implementations showed the same result. So it's probably multi-threaded code that causes a slow-down. Ping, status on this one? (In reply to Daniel Engberg from comment #3) The status is good. My suggestion is to implement three FLAVORs of this port: - depends on lang/luajit - depends on lang/luajit-openresty - depends on lang/luajit-devel Wouldn't it be easier to use a menu to select what lib you want to use? While it's out of scope for this PR I think we should decide of one flavour (most distros seems to use -openresty and it also has best compatibility between archs) to use instead of having to shuffle between three different libraries. (In reply to Daniel Engberg from comment #5) A menu adds a value for interactive work, when FLAVORs help to generate packages based on different dependencies. In case of the patch - that can be done in one if statement, so an additional work is required. Created attachment 236308 [details]
include 4.2.0 update while we're here
FWIW the flavors are really useful. I can finally have neovim + wrk on all my systems :-). while we're here, wrk 4.2.0 works just fine. A commit in branch main references this bug: URL: https://cgit.FreeBSD.org/ports/commit/?id=6b9920883dc98e69f450c84701ad4eab8e90ddac commit 6b9920883dc98e69f450c84701ad4eab8e90ddac Author: Sergey A. Osokin <osa@FreeBSD.org> AuthorDate: 2022-09-04 14:20:51 +0000 Commit: Sergey A. Osokin <osa@FreeBSD.org> CommitDate: 2022-09-04 14:21:50 +0000 benchmarks/wrk: update to 4.2.0 ChangeLog: https://github.com/wg/wrk/compare/4.1.0...4.2.0 PR: 251324 benchmarks/wrk/Makefile | 3 +-- benchmarks/wrk/distinfo | 6 +++--- 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) Updated to 4.2.0, thank you. |
Created attachment 219900 [details] wrk-aarch64-fix.patch lang/luajit-openresty builds on ARM64 and wrk, whn built with it, runs just fine. Attached patch switches the dependency to luajit-openresty for aarch64.