[bug#43159] [PATCH 1/2] scripts: Use 'define-command' and have 'guix help' use that.

[Maxim Cournoyer]

Hi Ludovic,

Sorry I couldn't reply faster.

Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:

[...]

>>> +;; Syntactic keywords.
>>> +(define synopsis 'command-synopsis)
>>> +(define category 'command-category)
>>
>> Are these definition really necessary/useful?  I would have thought
>> having category and synopsis understood as literals in the
>> define-command syntax was enough?
>
> It’s not strictly necessary but it’s been considered “good practice”.
> That allows users to detect name clashes, to rename/hide/etc. syntactic
> keywords and so on.

I see!  Thank you for explaining.

[...]

>>> +  ;; The strategy here is to parse FILE.  This is much cheaper than a
>>> +  ;; technique based on run-time introspection where we'd load FILE and all
>>> +  ;; the modules it depends on.
>>
>> Interesting! Have you measure it?  I would have thought loading a couple
>> optimized byte code modules could have been nearly as fast as parsing
>> files manually.  If so, I think it'd be preferable to use introspection
>> rather than implement a custom parser.
>
> On a fast recent laptop with an SSD, a load of 0, hot cache, etc., we’d
> still be below 1s.  But see:
>
> $ strace -c guix help >/dev/null
> % time     seconds  usecs/call     calls    errors syscall
> ------ ----------- ----------- --------- --------- ------------------
>  62.69    0.002698           1      2266      2043 stat
>  10.94    0.000471           2       161         2 lstat
>   4.55    0.000196           0       246           mmap
>   4.51    0.000194           0       330       172 openat
>
> [...]
>
> ------ ----------- ----------- --------- --------- ------------------
> 100.00    0.004304           1      3748      2235 total
> $ strace -c guile -c '(use-modules (guix scripts system) (guix scripts 
> authenticate))'
> % time     seconds  usecs/call     calls    errors syscall
> ------ ----------- ----------- --------- --------- ------------------
>  54.27    0.007799           1      5735      4518 stat
>  12.00    0.001724          11       149        27 futex
>   9.06    0.001302           0      1328       651 openat
>   7.24    0.001040           1       822           mmap
>
> [...]
>
> ------ ----------- ----------- --------- --------- ------------------
> 100.00    0.014371           1     10334      5202 total
>
>
> (The 1st run is the current ‘guix help’; the 2nd run +/- emulates what
> you propose.)
>
> Loading all the modules translates into a lot more I/O, roughly an order
> of magnitude.  We’re talking about loading tens of modules just to get
> at that synopsis:
>
> scheme@(guile-user)> ,use(guix modules)
> scheme@(guile-user)> (length (source-module-closure '((guix scripts system) 
> (guix scripts authenticate))))
> $10 = 439
> scheme@(guile-user)> (length (source-module-closure '((guix scripts) (guix 
> ui))))
> $11 = 31
>
> Memory usage would also be very different:
>
> $ \time guix help >/dev/null
> 0.07user 0.01system 0:00.06elapsed 128%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 
> 35348maxresident)k
> 0inputs+0outputs (0major+3906minor)pagefaults 0swaps
> $ \time guile -c '(use-modules (guix scripts system) (guix scripts 
> authenticate))'
> 0.42user 0.05system 0:00.37elapsed 128%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 
> 166916maxresident)k
> 0inputs+0outputs (0major+15148minor)pagefaults 0swaps

Thanks for the detailed measurements!  It does indeed seem your approach
is better, especially considering memory usage.  Perhaps the commands
could have been moved to dedicated modules not using much dependency at
all so that their closure would have been small hence fast to load, but
keeping the commands definitions local to where they are useful is
definitely a nice property.

> In summary, while this approach undoubtedly looks awkward to any Lisper,
> I think it’s a good way to not contribute to the general impression of
> sluggishness and resource-hungriness of ‘guix’ commands.  :-)
>
>>> +  (define (display-commands commands)
>>> +    (let* ((names     (map (lambda (command)
>>> +                             (string-join (command-name command)))
>>> +                           commands))
>>> +           (max-width (reduce max 0 (map string-length names))))
>>
>> You can drop reduce and use (max (map string-length names)) instead.
>
> I could do (apply max (map …)) but I don’t like the idea of abusing
> variadic argument lists in that way—I know, it’s very subjective.  ;-)

Eh, I wonder why?  I may be missing something, but if max allows it,
doesn't it mean it's a valid use?  Anyway, just curious to know what are
the grounds for this personal preference :-).

> Thanks for your feedback, I’ll send a v2!

Thanks!  I'm late, but LGTM, thank you.

Maxim