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

Symlink cargo build artifacts instead of copying them #322

Open
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

Philipp-M
Copy link
Contributor

Motivation

Avoid copying big cargo build artifacts from the nix store, when using cargoArtifacts.
This works by just symlinking everything in target/release/build and target/release/deps. and uses rsync to copy other files. AFAIK the big files are all contained in these folders and are content-addressed by hash, so this should be safe.

What I have noticed (even before this change), is that cargo tarpaulin generally seems to rebuild the cargo artifacts, ignoring previous artifacts, even with --skip-clean, this fails as it tries to regenerate already built artifacts and tries to write into the build folders.
This should probably be investigated, so that cargo tarpaulin reuses the previously built/cached dependencies.
I have for now just removed --skip-clean in cargo tarpaulin, as it doesn't seem to have the intended effect anyway?
Without that flag, all tests run through.

Btw. I have noticed the (now removed) comment, but I have not experienced any issues other than the cargo tarpaulin above.

Checklist

  • added tests to verify new behavior
  • added an example template or updated an existing one
  • updated docs/API.md (or general documentation) with changes
  • updated CHANGELOG.md

@dpc
Copy link
Contributor

dpc commented May 12, 2023

Have you seen #76 ?

@dpc
Copy link
Contributor

dpc commented May 12, 2023

I gave it a spin, but realized it can't help me as I'm running with:

installCargoArtifactsMode = "use-zstd";

for reasons explained in #76.

I turned it off, but then discovered that after building dependencies Nix does bunch of shrinking ... on lots of files, and then it causes building the workspace to rebuild all the dependencies again. :/

I'm not sure if master has some error, or my setup is triggering some issues (works OK with use-zstd).

So I can't tell how much does it improve things.

@dpc
Copy link
Contributor

dpc commented May 12, 2023

It seems like the problem is not there in v0.12.1, so I rebased your commit on top of v0.12.1:

9ca63fb40f4ff761a6cbb7d5c07f5fe4c98782b9 (HEAD -> symlink-artifacts, origin/symlink-artifacts) Symlink cargo build artifacts instead of copying them
445a3d222947632b5593112bb817850e8a9cf737 (tag: v0.12.1) Update CHANGELOG

and again I'm seeing rebuilds of dependencies. So either your change is causing it too, or I messed up something somewhere.

@dpc
Copy link
Contributor

dpc commented May 12, 2023

I tried again (to double check) just v0.12.1 and it doesn't have the problem.

@Philipp-M
Copy link
Contributor Author

Philipp-M commented May 12, 2023

No, I must've overlooked #76, thanks for mentioning.

I turned it off, but then discovered that after building dependencies Nix does bunch of shrinking ... on lots of files, and then it causes building the workspace to rebuild all the dependencies again. :/

Hmm weird, is maybe the host system relevant? It doesn't do that for me, it's shrinking the files, but that doesn't seem to matter and happens also on master.
It only (re-)builds local crates in the repository (workspace) but reuses external dependencies. For my reference, I'm using rust-overlay with the current stable (1.69) on NixOS, maybe that's relevant?

Can you provide more info? Maybe try one of the examples, if it's working there for you (e.g. trunk)?

@dpc
Copy link
Contributor

dpc commented May 12, 2023

I'm using fenix toolchain. I reported #323 , maybe it will shed some light.

@ipetkov
Copy link
Owner

ipetkov commented May 15, 2023

Hi @Philipp-M thank you for the PR! When I originally explored symlinking all artifacts (instead of copying them deeply) cargo would fail with some errors about trying to write to a read-only file system (i.e. the nix store), but I hadn't considered that this might not apply to all artifacts, so kudos to spotting that!


What I have noticed (even before this change), is that cargo tarpaulin generally seems to rebuild the cargo artifacts, ignoring previous artifacts

I don't use cargo-tarpaulin much these days, but I do remember it insisting on cleaning the target directory (to recompile all deps with the right compiler flags IIRC). If it is ignoring --skip-clean it deserves some investigation, but it could be an unrelated issue


Noting @dpc 's comment on #323 (please correct me if I'm misunderstanding or misrepresenting anything)

Edit: Just checked and it seems that v0.12.1 behaves correctly. It also does the shrinking but when buildWorkspace starts it only builds local crates as expected.

Sounds like these changes (as they stand currently) are leading to rebuilds. My first guess is that cargo may be getting confused by looking at artifacts whose timestamp is older than the sources (sources in the Nix store have a timestamp in 1970) and it is resulting in rebuilding them. I wonder if the artifacts should be hardlinked (not symlinked) so that they get their own timestamp instead of inheriting the previous one...

Comment on lines 34 to 47
if [ -d "${artifacts}/release/deps" ]; then
mkdir -p "${target}/release/deps"
for dep in $(ls "${artifacts}/release/deps"); do
ln -fs "${artifacts}/release/deps/$dep" "${target}/release/deps/$dep"
done
fi

if [ -d "${artifacts}/release/build" ]; then
mkdir -p "${target}/release/build"
for build in $(ls "${artifacts}/release/build"); do
ln -fs "${artifacts}/release/build/$build" "${target}/release/build/$build"
done
fi
}
Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

One thing worth noting is that this bit of logic is assuming that only release artifacts are being built. Although this is the default build behavior we apply, it's entirely possible a derivation can be configured to build any other profile (including custom ones).

Also the derivation could also be building for different targets (though I believe this is captured by the wildcards). I think a more robust approach might be to find out exactly which files cargo will tolerate as symlinks/hardlinks and use that instead (e.g. *.rlib, *.rmeta or */build/*, etc.)

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ohhh. I 99% was testing it with debug build, as our crane-based derivations default to debug-inherited profile. That would explain the rebuilds.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think a more robust approach might be to find out exactly which files cargo will tolerate as symlinks/hardlinks and use that instead (e.g. *.rlib, *.rmeta or /build/, etc.)

After a little bit of research, I think it's safer to just symlink the content-addressed artifacts (all files under build and deps), these are the artifacts that take most (almost all the) disk-space and I had some weird issues when testing something like this (create dirs recursively and then link every file from the nix store cargo target to the build target dir):

    find "${preparedArtifacts}" -type d -printf '%P\n' | sed '/^$/d' | xargs -d '\n' -n 100 -P 10 mkdir -p
    find "${preparedArtifacts}" -type f -printf '%P\n' | sed '/^$/d' | xargs -P 100 -d '\n' -I '##{}##' ln -fs "${preparedArtifacts}/##{}##" "##{}##"

Some .d files in the root of the build-target could not be overwritten, but others were overwritten...

I have found a way to make the code a little bit more concise and performant (symlinking of the amount of files can take some time, not much, but if it can be faster it should be faster :)) and now every build target and profile should be considered.

@dpc, can you try the latest commit?

Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

In the spirit of going as faster to be faster, we could even invoke mkdir -p on all directories with no child directories so we can do it in fewer spawned processes?

find "${preparedArtifacts}" -type d -links 2 ! -empty -printf '%P\n' | sed '/^$/d' | xargs -d '\n' -n 100 -P 10 mkdir -p

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@Philipp-M Everything failing on c415996

@ipetkov
Copy link
Owner

ipetkov commented Jun 7, 2023

@Philipp-M I pushed a small fix to resolve the build errors. Looks like a lot of the tests are passing but some are still failing (perhaps we shouldn't link build script output directories since scripts might need to be re-run and they expect to be able to write files? Alternatively perhaps we can take a shortcut by linking any *.rlib files or similar heuristics rather than guessing which directories are for build scripts and which ones aren't)

@Philipp-M
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thanks.
Sorry haven't had time to investigate this further (since it's also a little bit hard to debug, as on my machines everything seems to be working). According to the tests only OSX has problems (though I guess this has to be tested thoroughly on different machines anyway I think). I guess to be sure, one has to deep dive into the source of how cargo etc. is deciding whether stuff has to be rebuilt on different machines. Leaving build script dirs out of the linking process, is probably not a bad idea:

When rebuilding a package, Cargo does not necessarily know if the build script needs to be run again. By default, it takes a conservative approach of always re-running the build script if any file within the package is changed
...
The rerun-if-changed instruction tells Cargo to re-run the build script if the file at the given path has changed. Currently, Cargo only uses the filesystem last-modified “mtime” timestamp to determine if the file has changed. It compares against an internal cached timestamp of when the build script last ran.

If the path points to a directory, it will scan the entire directory for any modifications.

@dpc, can you provide more info, what exactly is going wrong (like hardware/OS, the exact issue)?

@Philipp-M
Copy link
Contributor Author

Just noticed #344 (thanks for further investigating btw.), I guess I can close this for now?
One thing I noticed while checking the deps folder, is that I think .so files can be safely symlinked as well.

@ipetkov
Copy link
Owner

ipetkov commented Jun 20, 2023

@Philipp-M It's up to you! I decided to pick the low hanging fruit so we could make incremental updates.

Feel free to explore the .so linking optimization in this PR or a fresh one as you prefer

@dpc
Copy link
Contributor

dpc commented Jun 23, 2023

I tried the current master with #334 and just so you're aware: in a larger project, just using zstd is still waaay better than not using, even with current optimizations.

In our our project zstd produces: 828M for deps, and 1.5G for workspace build. no-zstd&symlinks: 4.6G and 4.1G.

@ipetkov
Copy link
Owner

ipetkov commented Jun 25, 2023

@dpc fwiw this PR's symlinking only happens when inheriting existing artifacts to perform a build, but is entirely unrelated with how the resulting artifacts are organized in /nix/store

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants