Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Sort module timing report by time spent in the module #13195

Closed
Dr15Jones opened this issue Feb 4, 2016 · 6 comments
Closed

Sort module timing report by time spent in the module #13195

Dr15Jones opened this issue Feb 4, 2016 · 6 comments

Comments

@Dr15Jones
Copy link
Contributor

The Module Summary part of the timing report lists the modules in the order in which they happen to have been added to the internal schedule. This order has no significance to a user. @VinInn suggested that the report should be sorted by decreasing time spent in a module. This would allow one to quickly see which modules are taking the most time.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Feb 4, 2016

A new Issue was created by @Dr15Jones (Chris Jones).

@davidlange6, @smuzaffar, @Degano, @davidlt, @Dr15Jones can you please review it and eventually sign/assign? Thanks.

cms-bot commands are list here #13029

@Dr15Jones
Copy link
Contributor Author

assign core

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Feb 4, 2016

New categories assigned: core

@Dr15Jones,@smuzaffar you have been requested to review this Pull request/Issue and eventually sign? Thanks

@slava77
Copy link
Contributor

slava77 commented Feb 4, 2016

Grouping by dependence order would be more natural, something that's predictable from parsing the python.
Grouping by time spent or by incidental execution order is all random and seems of a limited use.

@Dr15Jones
Copy link
Contributor Author

I can see ordering by timing making it easy for someone looking at the job as a whole and trying to access what is taking all the time.

I can see ordering by module label to make it easy to find a particular module of interest.

@wmtan
Copy link
Contributor

wmtan commented Feb 8, 2016

This issue should be solved by PR #13225

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants