I’ve been testing the proposed package against the current version for
several days now and I would say this passes validation and fixes the
bug.

---

Testing steps taken:

 * Install current version of LS Client from archive, as well as
python3-psutil for benchmarking the CPU performance.

 * Add 'plucky-proposed' pocket to ubuntu.sources

 * Enable pinning for Landscape Client to allow the proposed package to
be discovered as upgradable by Landscape Server.

 * Wait for package reporter to run and verify the package is marked by
Landscape as upgradable, then upgrade it through Landscape and again
verify the proposed package is now listed as installed on the Client. I
also tested manually upgrading the package through apt.

 * Complete testing plan as described in the bug report to verify
package management still works in all cases.

 * Complete (relevant) Landscape Client-specific SRU QA verification
steps described in this public document
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/LandscapeUpdates under Packaging QA, and this
internal doc https://canonical-landscape-internal.readthedocs-
hosted.com/en/latest/wiki_migration/landscape_client_sru_tests/.


In this example, we can see the benchmark runtime was reduced by 60.39% after 
upgrading the package to the proposed version:

--------- Run on: 2025-06-03 22:38:09 ---------

         3077064 function calls (3077060 primitive calls) in 10.689
seconds

   Ordered by: cumulative time
   List reduced from 207 to 10 due to restriction <10>

   ncalls  tottime  percall  cumtime  percall filename:lineno(function)
        1    0.241    0.241   10.689   10.689 
reporter.py:686(compute_packages_change_inner)
   151678    0.190    0.000    7.334    0.000 package.py:675(origins)
   154226    0.129    0.000    7.119    0.000 package.py:299(__init__)
   154226    6.990    0.000    6.990    0.000 {method 'find_index' of 
'apt_pkg.SourceList' objects}
    75839    0.060    0.000    2.172    0.000 store.py:151(get_hash_id)
    75845    0.116    0.000    2.124    0.000 store.py:20(inner)
    75839    0.084    0.000    1.918    0.000 store.py:52(get_hash_id)
    75845    1.678    0.000    1.678    0.000 {method 'execute' of 
'sqlite3.Cursor' objects}
   151678    0.071    0.000    0.624    0.000 
facade.py:490(is_package_installed)
   154233    0.050    0.000    0.484    0.000 package.py:429(__eq__)


CPU Time: 10.25s

(upgrade Landscape Client to proposed, reinstate psutil benchmarking
from bug report)

--------- Run on: 2025-06-04 00:36:07 ---------

         2493282 function calls (2493279 primitive calls) in 4.359
seconds

   Ordered by: cumulative time
   List reduced from 205 to 10 due to restriction <10>

   ncalls  tottime  percall  cumtime  percall filename:lineno(function)
        1    0.353    0.353    4.359    4.359 
reporter.py:686(compute_packages_change_inner)
    76663    0.070    0.000    2.847    0.000 store.py:151(get_hash_id)
    76669    0.129    0.000    2.814    0.000 store.py:20(inner)
    76663    0.107    0.000    2.553    0.000 store.py:52(get_hash_id)
    76669    2.244    0.000    2.244    0.000 {method 'execute' of 
'sqlite3.Cursor' objects}
   153326    0.075    0.000    0.721    0.000 
facade.py:490(is_package_installed)
   156190    0.051    0.000    0.549    0.000 package.py:429(__eq__)
   156190    0.231    0.000    0.498    0.000 package.py:400(_cmp)
    76663    0.047    0.000    0.225    0.000 facade.py:470(get_package_hash)
        1    0.017    0.017    0.215    0.215 facade.py:184(get_locked_packages)


CPU Time: 4.06s


** Tags removed: verification-needed verification-needed-plucky
** Tags added: verification-done-plucky

-- 
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2099283

Title:
  [SRU] Update Focal, Jammy, Noble, Oracular, Plucky, Questing to reduce
  CPU usage of landscape-package-reporter

To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/landscape-client/+bug/2099283/+subscriptions


-- 
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs

Reply via email to